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

[sandorski]

I'm gonna write a book comparing Hitler to B Gates and come to the only logical conclusion: Liberals give far more to Charity and kill far fewer Jews!

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: 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.

I think you're wrong. I think that Dems are just as willing to HELP as are republicans. They just go about it differently. (Obviously I'm only talking about the "gainfully employed, making more than is necessary for survival" sub-section of both sides, as most people less than that aren't going to be donating much of anything, or paying much in taxes.

See, my theory is that most Democrats view taxes as a "sunk cost". They first look at the "after tax" number on their paycheck, and mostly ignore the "before tax" number, since really the only number that actually matters to them is how much is actually being deposited in their bank account.

Likewise, I think that most Republicans view taxes as an annoyance. They look at the "before tax" number on their paycheck, and think "damn the government is practically stealing from me" when comparing to the "after tax" number.

With this being said, I think that since democrats see taxes as a sunk cost, in order to help the poor/needy/elderly/whatever, they would rather their taxes go up a little bit (say $25ish per paycheck, something like $225->$250 per paycheck being deducted), instead of donating a big chunk at once to a private charity, because they would probably not really notice the difference as much (with it being spread over many smallish payments).

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

maybe also thats why NYT subscribers base continues to shrink every year,
hahaha

 

[CPA]

I see most of you missed the 20/20 special John Stossel had the other night which had the SU Professor on to talk about his study. It was very enlightening. Of course, anything that puts Libs in a bad spotlight is automatically slammed on this board, so it doesn't surprise me of some of the comments so far.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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."

Typical right-wing ideology lie that the people fall for.

(In other words, I'm not saying cwj is intentionally lying, I'm saying he believes this lie).

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

No, we recognize that sometimes a government program is a lot more effective than private charity. (Other times, it's not).

Liberals have to pay the same taxes they pass, but let's remember that the modern republican party doesn't tax and spend less, they borrow and spend more, on bad things.

For example, when republicans passed the drug bill, they forced it to have a provision inflating the prices paid to the drug companies, giving their #1 donor industry hundreds of billions in profit windfall, while the drug program itself actually made drugs for many seniors more expensive, hurting them. The dmeocrats would have reduced the profits to the drug companies and shifted that to lower costs to seniors; in fact fixing this is one of their 'agenda items'.

 

[CPA]

Here's a question for those of you blaming the difference on the charitable tax deduction. If what you believe is the case - that Conservatives only give because of the write-off - what's stopping the Dems from doing the same?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CPA
Here's a question for those of you blaming the difference on the charitable tax deduction. If what you believe is the case - that Conservatives only give because of the write-off - what's stopping the Dems from doing the same?

More Conservatives need the tax write off. Even if Conservatives give more to charities I bet it's still a small percetage of them.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 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."

Typical right-wing ideology lie that the people fall for.

(In other words, I'm not saying cwj is intentionally lying, I'm saying he believes this lie).

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

No, we recognize that sometimes a government program is a lot more effective than private charity. (Other times, it's not).

Liberals have to pay the same taxes they pass, and liberals who pass the taxes on average pay more taxes than republicans; they're spending their own money.

The difference is not that republicans spend little; they talk the talk but don't walk the walk; the difference is that the liberals spend on useful things, republicans on corruption.

The 'ultra wealthy', of course, are another matter; they're republicans who give the bottom-feeder republicans the flag waving and bible thumping they want, to keep their votes and get their servants elected to serve the ultra-wealthy agenda which has kept 90% of Americans flat in income while the most wealthy's income has skyrocketed.

LOL, you sir are one angry person.

Oh, and please list one program that the government does "better" than a charity.

BTW, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - all Liberals, and all getting wealthier. Where's the outrage?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA
Here's a question for those of you blaming the difference on the charitable tax deduction. If what you believe is the case - that Conservatives only give because of the write-off - what's stopping the Dems from doing the same?

More Conservatives need the tax write off. Even if Conservatives give more to charities I bet it's still a small percetage of them.

Please, Red, that's exactly the point the SU professor was making. The stereotype is dead wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

maybe also thats why NYT subscribers base continues to shrink every year,
hahaha

Actually the NYT is one of the few newspapers that has been adding subscribers in recent years

I know you were just making an ignorant right wing jab at what I said, but you should really check up on that sort of thing before you make a fool out of yourself.

The reason why the Times' subscription base has increased however is certainly due to the fact that it is increasingly a national newspaper as opposed to a regional one. So... I fully expect its readership to decline again in the near future. The reason for this isn't because it's so left wing though. (the Wall St. Journal is losing subscribers too). It has to do with changing media consumption habits thanks to cable TV and the internet. Newspapers have been on the retreat for 20 years, this is nothing new. That's why you see these papers trying to switch to online subscription models like TimesSelect and all that crap.

Trust me, if they headlined their editions with stories about how swell it is that various government officials were donating to charity their subscription base would disappear a lot faster.

 

[Red Dawn]

Well what do I know, I'm neither Conservative or Liberal and I don't donate sh!t unless you want to count an occasional donation to the Salvation Army Bell Ringer at XMas time or a few bucks I might give some wino or begger when I'm in the mood.

 

[Red Dawn]

DP

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CPA

LOL, you sir are one angry person.

No. Some anger, though, but not excessive. More frustration at seeing the republican voters lied to and voting in bad policies as a result. But my views are based on love.

Oh, and please list one program that the government does "better" than a charity.

Medicare. OK, a freebie second: Social Security. OK, a freebie third: curing Polio.

More importantly, perhaps, the things the government *could* be doing and which are not getting done now, such as better drug rehab/prisoner rehabilitation.

Soup kitchens run on charity are great, but they're not enough. Private charities do a lot of good, too; take Habitat for Humanity, or African aid charities.

BTW, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - all Liberals, and all getting wealthier. Where's the outrage?

And all sharing the concerns of liberals that the wealthy, including themselves, are too well-treated at the expense of the nation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CPA
BTW, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - all Liberals, and all getting wealthier. Where's the outrage?

Kind of hard to be outraged at them when they are/ will be giving away the vast majority of their wealth. And check it out, it's not with strings attached like a lot of the charity given away by Religious institutions.

 

[feralkid]

Does it really matter how much Dick Cheney gives to charity?
I mean, he's going to hell no matter how much he gives away.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 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."

Typical right-wing ideology lie that the people fall for.

(In other words, I'm not saying cwj is intentionally lying, I'm saying he believes this lie).

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

No, we recognize that sometimes a government program is a lot more effective than private charity. (Other times, it's not).

Liberals have to pay the same taxes they pass, and liberals who pass the taxes on average pay more taxes than republicans; they're spending their own money.

The difference is not that republicans spend little; they talk the talk but don't walk the walk; the difference is that the liberals spend on useful things, republicans on corruption.

The 'ultra wealthy', of course, are another matter; they're republicans who give the bottom-feeder republicans the flag waving and bible thumping they want, to keep their votes and get their servants elected to serve the ultra-wealthy agenda which has kept 90% of Americans flat in income while the most wealthy's income has skyrocketed.

LOL, you sir are one angry person.

Oh, and please list one program that the government does "better" than a charity.

BTW, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - all Liberals, and all getting wealthier. Where's the outrage?

You will note with Bill gates he didnt hand the govt the 17 billion he put into his "charity" either
Govt does a better job my ass, that is some great comedy right there.

 

[Stoneburner]

conservatives have more monies maybe?

 

[Vic]

This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
conservatives have more monies maybe?

Myth.

You should do a comparison of income demographics with partisan affiliation. It's quite enlightening. While the numbers do balance out, so that neither party has a real income advantage over the other, in general Dems are more likely to be more affluent urbanites while Pubs (particularly religious-oriented Pubs) are more likely to be poor ruralites. Poor Dems tend to be struggling youth (which BTW is the primary demographic of this forum). Wealthier Pubs tend to be business owners and entrepreneurs. Dems are more likely to work in government or union environments. Pubs not so.

It is impossible, however, to point to a particular stereotype of an example of either party. The make-up of both is so ridiculously diverse as to be contradictory.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

maybe also thats why NYT subscribers base continues to shrink every year,
hahaha

Actually the NYT is one of the few newspapers that has been adding subscribers in recent years

I know you were just making an ignorant right wing jab at what I said, but you should really check up on that sort of thing before you make a fool out of yourself.

The reason why the Times' subscription base has increased however is certainly due to the fact that it is increasingly a national newspaper as opposed to a regional one. So... I fully expect its readership to decline again in the near future. The reason for this isn't because it's so left wing though. (the Wall St. Journal is losing subscribers too). It has to do with changing media consumption habits thanks to cable TV and the internet. Newspapers have been on the retreat for 20 years, this is nothing new. That's why you see these papers trying to switch to online subscription models like TimesSelect and all that crap.

Trust me, if they headlined their editions with stories about how swell it is that various government officials were donating to charity their subscription base would disappear a lot faster.

.2 is not much of a gain and there have been a lot of claims of inflated subscriber bases/
In addition it is still way behind usa today and wall street journal
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html

liberal bias? even the NY times admits that

[edit] Self-examination of bias
In summer 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece on the Times' alleged liberal bias.[28] He concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues, gay marriage being the example he used. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.

Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news", such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties. However, he noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was, among other things, insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration (see below). In May 2005 Okrent was succeeded by Byron Calame.

Additionally in a post-Jayson Blair report to Bill Keller,[29] a committee of Times employees noted:

Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times ' editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times#Self-examination_of_bias

 

[Genx87]

Come on Paul Krugmen is liberal?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

No, I do not donate my money for tax writeoffs, would be nice to see these "charitable" institutions (churches) get taxed like they should and the leeches who use them as writeoffs have to pay their share to society.

Conservatives = let everyone else clean up their messes, pay their taxes, whine when they do not get their way and throw up BS catchwords like "liberty" and "individualism" when they are nothing but the United States spoiled children who think the world is owed to them and they should not have to do their share.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: 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:

Apparently you didn't bother to read about the studies linked...