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

[classy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Tax write offs.

Yep. Thats the only reason. And as for Cheney. I wonder how much of that 6 million he gave away came from him cutting back alley deals and screwing the American public and its troops. AKA Haliburton

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Tax write offs.

Yep. Thats the only reason. And as for Cheney. I wonder how much of that 6 million he gave away came from him cutting back alley deals and screwing the American public and its troops. AKA Haliburton

Well I was corrected, they aren't write offs, they are deductions.

 

[soccerballtux]

Actually the EU gives something like 3x what America gives per GDP to charity and the likes.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Actually the EU gives something like 3x what America gives per GDP to charity and the likes.

gdp is just a nice way to manipulate statistics to say what you want them to say.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Actually the EU gives something like 3x what America gives per GDP to charity and the likes.

gdp is just a nice way to manipulate statistics to say what you want them to say.

Actually, "manipulating" statistics would be to ignore it, since it is basically a dishonest load of crap if you do. Proportions are hugely important when making comparisons on monetary things.

 

[d3n]

I would simply say that the culture of entitlement that government social programs promote They strip people of the notion to be self reliant. It also strips people of the notion to contribute to the efforts of others to be self reliant.

 

[Craig234]

Get a clue, d3n, they are help where needed to get people productive - they have all kinds of motivation tobe 'self reliant', from the inherent way most people are on this, to the many rewards which await them if they do better - nicer, home, car, toys.

Your 'self reliant' line is nothing but progpaganda from the wealthy who don't want to spend a cent on anyone else. Like all good propaganda, it sounds like it could have some truth to it, but has an 'agenda' that's false.

Sorry to debunk one of the core mytht of the right for decades you repeat thousands of times in a couple sentences; in fact, the number of times you hear it , the 'big lie' technique of repetition, is why you can't hear that it's false. You just can't accept it, so you go on thinking it's true and repeating it.

It'd be hard work for you righties to make sense of our political system if you changed the belief in that, you have too many years invested, so you do the easier thing, and don't listen.

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Get a clue, d3n, they are help where needed to get people productive - they have all kinds of motivation tobe 'self reliant', from the inherent way most people are on this, to the many rewards which await them if they do better - nicer, home, car, toys.

Your 'self reliant' line is nothing but progpaganda from the wealthy who don't want to spend a cent on anyone else. Like all good propaganda, it sounds like it could have some truth to it, but has an 'agenda' that's false.

Sorry to debunk one of the core mytht of the right for decades you repeat thousands of times in a couple sentences; in fact, the number of times you hear it , the 'big lie' technique of repetition, is why you can't hear that it's false. You just can't accept it, so you go on thinking it's true and repeating it.

It'd be hard work for you righties to make sense of our political system if you changed the belief in that, you have too many years invested, so you do the easier thing, and don't listen.

I'm not sure where to go with that. I don't have much personally invested in the political system. My views are not based on some one liners. My dad is a former police chief/FBI agent. Hes my foundation. I have served in the military re-upping after Iraq. My kids are home schooled, they are adopted, and are considered special needs. I grew up rural. I think that most people are wrong about government. I get the impression that they see it as a tool to be used to enforce their opinions on others. I see its best function as being as transparent to my life as possible. I see its best role as preserving common resources and controlling big business. I would like to see it project itself against hostile threats to this country with as much outward force as possible. I think immigration amnesty is a crock and a danger because all previous immigration has been controlled and assimilated. Current immigration policies are none of those things and strife will be the result. For what? some votes in the democratic pocket and a nod to big business.

As for 'culture of entitlement' that is exactly the way I see things. Cradle to grave acceptances of government intervening in peoples lives and providing handouts as a type of payoff or bribe so politicians can amass their fiefdoms.

Truthfully, I see the core problem as parental apathy. Parents are so used to the worker drone culture they have little input on shaping or forming their kids moral and mental center. Government schooling is all that is needed. To bad for inner city youths is that the culture or parental apathy has largely created a culture of adolescent apathy. Self improvement is a non priority and even counter productive to the lot they have in life. By the time these kids are four they are practically beyond helping.

I think Ive seen the worst of this. I have had over a dozen of these kids from the heart of SE D.C. in my house as part of the foster care system. Its a shame. Still, I went to bat for them and had them the social programs they were entitled too (mainly psychological therapy.) I've stood up and told judges how it was going to be if they were going to stay under my roof. I usually get a thank you. I say honestly that most of these kids help came from my wife or myself. We had them reading and most of the time we had them out of reach of parents that only wanted to used them as a tool to get welfare money. I can't really fault the parents, where were they're parents after all.

I see people as responsible for making their own way in life. This country is the best in the world because the culture here is so conducive to letting that happen. What happens when people look to government their whole lives and find out its not there? With kids they find out oops, they weren't educated and as prepared as they should have been, with benfits they find out that social security was bankrupt. When the crap really hits the fan they find out that the cops are out of reach and the best person to help them is themselves. If they haven't been prepared and self reliant before they are going to try and get that way. Largely they will try and walk down the street and take what they need from whoever they see because thats what the culture of entitlement as breed in them.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Actually the EU gives something like 3x what America gives per GDP to charity and the likes.

gdp is just a nice way to manipulate statistics to say what you want them to say.

Actually, "manipulating" statistics would be to ignore it, since it is basically a dishonest load of crap if you do. Proportions are hugely important when making comparisons on monetary things.

GNP:
Gross National Product measures the total amount of goods and services that a country's citizens produce regardless of where they produce them. As a result, GNP includes such items as corporate profits that multinational firms earn in overseas markets. For example, if an American firm operates a plant in Brazil, then the profits that the firm earns would contribute to U.S. GNP.

GDP:
By contrast, GDP measures the total amount of goods and services that are produced within a country's geographic borders. Therefore, for GDP purposes, an American company with a plant in Brazil will actually contribute to Brazilian GDP.



and so what if our gdp is 1000 times greater then east treestumpistan.
If I were on the recieving end I would rather recieve a $100,000,000.00 check then the $2,000,000.00 one. Wouldn't you?

 

[umbrella39]

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.

welcome back :roll:

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Actually the EU gives something like 3x what America gives per GDP to charity and the likes.

gdp is just a nice way to manipulate statistics to say what you want them to say.

Actually, "manipulating" statistics would be to ignore it, since it is basically a dishonest load of crap if you do. Proportions are hugely important when making comparisons on monetary things.

GNP:
Gross National Product measures the total amount of goods and services that a country's citizens produce regardless of where they produce them. As a result, GNP includes such items as corporate profits that multinational firms earn in overseas markets. For example, if an American firm operates a plant in Brazil, then the profits that the firm earns would contribute to U.S. GNP.

GDP:
By contrast, GDP measures the total amount of goods and services that are produced within a country's geographic borders. Therefore, for GDP purposes, an American company with a plant in Brazil will actually contribute to Brazilian GDP.



and so what if our gdp is 1000 times greater then east treestumpistan.
If I were on the recieving end I would rather recieve a $100,000,000.00 check then the $2,000,000.00 one. Wouldn't you?

Ultimately, it is more money -- that is correct. But as for what was originally intended, per capita, we don't actually give that much more.

It reminds me of the 20/20 special someone brought up earlier. It pointed out that the Waltons (the Wallyworld family) have given away around $2 billion dollars. A lot of money by any standard -- country, company or individual. Yet they're worth over $82 billion. Are they more generous than someone making $25k a year who is supporting a family and giving $10 a week away to the Salvation Army or some other charity?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel49
Topic Title: If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?

How old are you?

Still at home under the roof of rich Republican parents?

OK, I'll spell it out for those that have a lot of learning to do.

You're so called "generous" conservatives are rich beyond what normal people could possibly spend. They have so much and they hate to be taxed on it so they come up with "every imaginable way" to find ways to get out of paying their "fair share" in taxes.

So Charities do get some on their list of squirreling money away to look good on paper to the IRS but it is a fraction of what they really could give to charity if they weren't so greedy.

Hopefully you will never know what its like to really want to give to charity because you want to and have a true bounty of windfall but you can't because you are struggling just to make it check to check like most "liberal" Americans.

Guess what though, those struggling liberals tend to donate to charity in an even more important way, with their time and physical efforts.

Do you think those Charities run by themselves?

Let me know in 15 or so years what you learn.

Its truly amazing how far off this and 99.9% of your other posts are.
My parents were not Republicans.
Nor were they rich.
I probably have 20 years on you.
I have worked all my life, sometimes 2 or 3 jobs at once to make ends meet.
I have been in positions for periods of months where I have been out of work in my life.
I have given to a wide variety of charities in the last 30 years.
And am easily irritated by whiners who are too lazy or proud to get up off thier butt and go find work (any work) to pay thier bills.
Write me in 15 years when you comprehend this post.

So the 49 is 1949 and you are 57?

I'm 45 so you're close.

I have been and still in the same boat. Currently working three jobs

 

[HomeAppraiser]

Hit google for a few facts:

The Cheneys' return is so complicated that the White House is referring questions to the tax lawyers. The Cheneys? adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006!!!

During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under a 2001 Gift Administration Agreement.

To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930.

That's why.

Edit: I just did the math taxes withheld minus refund $2,331,400 - $1,938,930 = $392,470 of NET taxes paid on an adjusted gross income of $8,819,006!!!

$392,470/$8,819,006 = an effective tax rate of only 4.45% Holy Fusking Sh!t

Change the Topic Summary: Who'd you say pays their fare share of taxes Cheney Or Gore ?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ntdz
Liberals care about the little guy. Conservatives like to give their own money to charities and such, and Liberals like to make the government take it from the conservatives and give it to themselves.

Links?

Text

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel49
Topic Title: If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?

How old are you?

Still at home under the roof of rich Republican parents?

OK, I'll spell it out for those that have a lot of learning to do.

You're so called "generous" conservatives are rich beyond what normal people could possibly spend. They have so much and they hate to be taxed on it so they come up with "every imaginable way" to find ways to get out of paying their "fair share" in taxes.

So Charities do get some on their list of squirreling money away to look good on paper to the IRS but it is a fraction of what they really could give to charity if they weren't so greedy.

Hopefully you will never know what its like to really want to give to charity because you want to and have a true bounty of windfall but you can't because you are struggling just to make it check to check like most "liberal" Americans.

Guess what though, those struggling liberals tend to donate to charity in an even more important way, with their time and physical efforts.

Do you think those Charities run by themselves?

Let me know in 15 or so years what you learn.

Its truly amazing how far off this and 99.9% of your other posts are.
My parents were not Republicans.
Nor were they rich.
I probably have 20 years on you.
I have worked all my life, sometimes 2 or 3 jobs at once to make ends meet.
I have been in positions for periods of months where I have been out of work in my life.
I have given to a wide variety of charities in the last 30 years.
And am easily irritated by whiners who are too lazy or proud to get up off thier butt and go find work (any work) to pay thier bills.
Write me in 15 years when you comprehend this post.

So the 49 is 1949 and you are 57?

I'm 45 so you're close.

I have been and still in the same boat. Currently working three jobs

ok 6 years then

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
So, leeching off your family is ok

Taking care of one's parents is traditional in China.

From what I have seen nowadays the people are leaving their family's behind to work in the cities, but what does China have to do with the topic?

OT - There is a difference between leeching and taking care of your family. A leech doesn't pay bills and doesn't help his family. Someone who takes care of their family looks out for them, pays bills, and works with his family to further the whole rather the individual. Leeches only think of themselves and when it's time to leave they don't look back.

 

[BlancoNino]

What I find fascinating, is the job of the social worker. Private charities volunteer their money AND time for the benefit of others, while social workers get payed a decent salary to do their job. Making a living off of the misfortune of others can take away the incentive to get folks out of poverty.

Edit: And not to mention that most social workers I've talked with blame their failures on lack of funding yet claim it's not their job to volunteer ANY of their own time and money.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
What I find fascinating, is the job of the social worker. Private charities volunteer their money AND time for the benefit of others, while social workers get payed a decent salary to do their job. Making a living off of the misfortune of others can take away the incentive to get folks out of poverty.

Edit: And not to mention that most social workers I've talked with blame their failures on lack of funding yet claim it's not their job to volunteer ANY of their own time and money.

You seem to be under the impression that charities don't have a paid staffs. While some are mostly, if not entirely volunteer, numerous charities have fully paid staff.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Strk
You seem to be under the impression that charities don't have a paid staffs. While some are mostly, if not entirely volunteer, numerous charities have fully paid staff.

True, but at least they aren't forcing anyone to give them money.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
What I find fascinating, is the job of the social worker. Private charities volunteer their money AND time for the benefit of others, while social workers get payed a decent salary to do their job. Making a living off of the misfortune of others can take away the incentive to get folks out of poverty.

Edit: And not to mention that most social workers I've talked with blame their failures on lack of funding yet claim it's not their job to volunteer ANY of their own time and money.

Excellent example of the right-wing cult view.

By this logic, the police don't want to stop crime, doctors don't want to cure people, researchers don't want to find cures for diseases, and so on.

It goes to show how they are in a fantasyland where people are only looking to make short term money.

Social workers are already doing hard work that helps people. But to these ideologues, that's not enough; they have to somehow match the free efforts by charities.

You don't see them out demanding that others go without salary. They just seem to have an irrational hatred for government workers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
What I find fascinating, is the job of the social worker. Private charities volunteer their money AND time for the benefit of others, while social workers get payed a decent salary to do their job. Making a living off of the misfortune of others can take away the incentive to get folks out of poverty.

Edit: And not to mention that most social workers I've talked with blame their failures on lack of funding yet claim it's not their job to volunteer ANY of their own time and money.

Excellent example of the right-wing cult view.

By this logic, the police don't want to stop crime, doctors don't want to cure people, researchers don't want to find cures for diseases, and so on.

It goes to show how they are in a fantasyland where people are only looking to make short term money.

Social workers are already doing hard work that helps people. But to these ideologues, that's not enough; they have to somehow match the free efforts by charities.

You don't see them out demanding that others go without salary. They just seem to have an irrational hatred for government workers.

Excuse me, but that wasn't his argument, and you made a needless personal attack along with your straw man. And really, you're not one to be talking about ideologues when you are one yourself, just of perhaps a different religion that BN.

And, as Strk already pointed out, the flaw in his argument is that charities have paid staff too, so the whole point was already moot and put to bed before you ran in screaming "right winger! right winger!"
Oh woops, I forgot though, your idea of argument is that for example if someone were to say for example that illicit drug abuse can't be stopped through legislation because legislation doesn't address the supply of illicit drugs, you would come mocking in a sarcastic tone over and over again claiming that that person said the supply of drugs was infinite, and you'd keep doing that just to be a jerk even when it was proven you were wrong. Then... when someone pointed out just how trollishly rude your behavior is, you'd accuse that person of threatening you. And then you'd go back to trolling. Ah yes, that's right... you're that person.

 

[Starbuck1975]

There is an article in MIT: Tech Review this issue about the $100 laptop initiative. The writer of the article compares this initiative to the public library initiative envisioned and funded by Carnegie.

The wealthy and elite are in a better position to fund and support charitable causes because they approach them with the same business sense and expectations for success that they would a business venture.

Examples like these are why I believe in trickle down economics. I do not assume that everyone who accumulates wealth will choose to hoard it for themselves. If anything, and this is especially true in America, the most wealthy also tend to be the most charitable.

I would rather these individuals have the option to support and fund their own causes, rather then the government take said funds from them through taxes. If given the choice between the government and a CEO to lead a social welfare initiative, I'll take the CEO 8 times out of 10 (Enron and Worldcom being two noteable examples of the rotten eggs in the sample population).

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Vic
Excuse me, but that wasn't his argument, and you made a needless personal attack along with your straw man. ..

Oh woops, I forgot though, your idea of argument is that for example if someone were to say for example that illicit drug abuse can't be stopped through legislation because legislation doesn't address the supply of illicit drugs, you would come mocking in a sarcastic tone over and over again claiming that that person said the supply of drugs was infinite, and you'd keep doing that just to be a jerk even when it was proven you were wrong. Then... when someone pointed out just how trollishly rude your behavior is, you'd accuse that person of threatening you. And then you'd go back to trolling. Ah yes, that's right... you're that person.

Vic, you really need to crawl back under what rock you came from. I've already indicated I don't care to discuss issues with someone who has behaved as you have, but you post.

And the crap you post: here, you can't go two sentences without going from saying I use a straw man, to making your attack based on the straw man of what you say I would say.

Of course, you get both terribly wrong, but the irony is shameless.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
If given the choice between the government and a CEO to lead a social welfare initiative, I'll take the CEO 8 times out of 10 (Enron and Worldcom being two noteable examples of the rotten eggs in the sample population).

Starbuck, that's because you fail to see through two things.

One is the differenct agendas that the government and CEOs have. The CEOs can at best deliver a sliver of the need, and they have a very different agenda.

Go watch or read "The Corporation" sometime, and recognize how corporations are *required by law* to put the public interest in second place when they are deciding.

CEOs are not immune to that culture, and while some do great, generous things, it's only a tiny part of the need.

The government, on the other hand, has the duty to the public, and it is far, far more effective in many areas, including generally the ones it operates in now.

Only education will teach you this distinction.

The second thing you don't see through is that the CEOs have the propaganda almost entirely on their side. They spend vast sums proclaiming their wonderful traits; there's a slew of popular magazines following the 'business world', but you won't find any analogous ones for the government workers. Quick, name three new initiatives from the department of health and human services last year; I bet you can't.

You are remarkably misguided in your 8 out of 10 figure.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic
Excuse me, but that wasn't his argument, and you made a needless personal attack along with your straw man. ..

Oh woops, I forgot though, your idea of argument is that for example if someone were to say for example that illicit drug abuse can't be stopped through legislation because legislation doesn't address the supply of illicit drugs, you would come mocking in a sarcastic tone over and over again claiming that that person said the supply of drugs was infinite, and you'd keep doing that just to be a jerk even when it was proven you were wrong. Then... when someone pointed out just how trollishly rude your behavior is, you'd accuse that person of threatening you. And then you'd go back to trolling. Ah yes, that's right... you're that person.

Vic, you really need to crawl back under what rock you came from. I've already indicated I don't care to discuss issues with someone who has behaved as you have, but you post.

And the crap you post: here, you can't go two sentences without going from saying I use a straw man, to making your attack based on the straw man of what you say I would say.

Of course, you get both terribly wrong, but the irony is shameless.

What? You think I'll stop posting because you ask me to? That's hilarious.

Like all the other trolls on ATPN, you have a predictable pattern. Yours is straw man. Everytime some posts something you disagree with, you ignore their post and go off on a longwinded argument about how they posted something else, usually extreme and ridiculous, the easier for you to mock and condescend, and with which to contrast the beauteous light of your beloved agenda (which, of course, can never be viewed critically but only in the most glowing terms). In short, you're a pompous partisan hack.

Oh BTW, telling me that am "terribly wrong" without any proof besides your word is beyond weak.