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

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
You have already admitted to us here that you do not give AT ALL.

Provide a link to my tax statement then.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
it's not with strings attached like a lot of the charity given away by Religious institutions.

Got proof to back that up?

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Tax write offs are not generous, it is a self serving loophole for the greedy.

Wait. So let me get this straight. If someone gives a donation to an organization, they did it in order to write it off on their taxes and that somehow makes them greedy? You gotta be kidding me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Translation, I wont leech off my family, Ill leech off the rest of society.
Your selfishness showing through again.

Some people see society and community as a family, not just people out to get you.

This statement makes no sense given the personal feelings you revealed to us about how you feel about your own family.

Like family, society and community is something that works best when it works together, with each person being allowed input, and not just some dictating to others.

Wrong, we choose who dictates what by voting for said person, you are off in some anarchist libertarian la la land again vic, come back. This is america not africa.

Please don't straw man. That is not what I said, and you have only reinforced my point that you are a selfish person. What I said is that democracy is not your personal tyranny, nor is generosity pushing people around. Like I said, you are a very anti-social person. No wonder you can't be successful in business.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Translation, I wont leech off my family, Ill leech off the rest of society.
Your selfishness showing through again.

Some people see society and community as a family, not just people out to get you.

Guess it depends, if society is filled with people like you who admit to wanting to steal my money for personal gain. Then how can people not think certain aspects of society are out to get them?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
And this despite the fact that the government is so inefficient as a charity that if the government were an actual charity the government would shut it down, right?

Funny, our old people do not die in the streets and our freeways are in decent repair, *checks outside* yep, bridges standing well also.

You are such a tool, noone coerces you, you just are a spoiled selfish twit who thinks he lives in his own world.

One day you may realize everything that you are and ever will have you owe to society in one way or another, get over yourself.

There actually was a functional country prior to our giant central government. Only thing socialism does differently is ensure that a single corrupt hand can waste the money or control and bribe others with it. It paves the way for authoritarians like Bush.

Pooling the wealth of this country to a single source is asking for a disaster. Not to mention how much is taken off the top in handling fee that never makes it back to the people. I?m betting efficiency is not a bloated bureaucracy?s strong point.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
You have already admitted to us here that you do not give AT ALL.

Provide a link to my tax statement then.

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
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.

Originally posted by: Vic
I am only telling you what you are telling us. Maybe you ought to read what you post?

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Tax write offs are not generous, it is a self serving loophole for the greedy.

 

[shadow9d9]

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.

"Republicans beleive the gov't should be smaller"- Have you been around the last 6 years?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Tax write offs are not generous, it is a self serving loophole for the greedy.

Wait. So let me get this straight. If someone gives a donation to an organization, they did it in order to write it off on their taxes and that somehow makes them greedy? You gotta be kidding me.

I find the concept of trumpeting what you "gave" to be hypocritical, it is not given, because people expected money back one way or another. The whole thing should be done away with imo. Watch what happens to all these "giving" peoples donations if they cant leech it back.

It will dry right up.

All you are doing is looking to subsidize religions with tax money, it's BS and it's socialist to the core what you are defending.

 

[shadow9d9]

Repeating since people are derailing and like to pick easy targets to respond to:

"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! "

 

[Corbett]

Watch what happens to all these "giving" peoples donations if they cant leech it back.
It will dry right up.

So then i guess that "loophole" is there on purpose then eh? It promotes giving!

 

[Kwaipie]

I wonder what Cheney's charities were.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Tax write offs are not generous, it is a self serving loophole for the greedy.

Wait. So let me get this straight. If someone gives a donation to an organization, they did it in order to write it off on their taxes and that somehow makes them greedy? You gotta be kidding me.

I find the concept of trumpeting what you "gave" to be hypocritical, it is not given, because people expected money back one way or another. The whole thing should be done away with imo. Watch what happens to all these "giving" peoples donations if they cant leech it back.

It will dry right up.

The govt obviously see's the importance of private charities within out society. Thus the govt has decided it will promote donations to these charities by allow people to use donated money to offset a portion of their income tax.

And if it dries up then what? You proved a point while people who use these charities are stuck? Real humanitarian you are leechlerot.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Watch what happens to all these "giving" peoples donations if they cant leech it back.
It will dry right up.

So then i guess that "loophole" is there on purpose then eh? It promotes giving!

No it promotes a welfare state for religious institutions with all of our tax monies, if you want a church(s) build your own, not on my dime.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

And if it dries up then what? You proved a point while people who use these charities are stuck?

We elect the people who choose how this is done, it is called democracy, if you think the govt is inefficient then vote said person out, there is no real oversight in how a church uses our monies, whereas I can go look it up, take part and vote if I see wrong in the system.


Vic and Genx:


Commies for christers!

Raah raah goooo religious welfare!

 

[Vic]

The reason charitable donations are tax deductible (NOT write-offs, there is a difference but I don't expect rot to understand it) is because every dollar given privately to charities is a dollar that the government doesn't have to fund to charities (or social program equivalents). The government still comes out ahead, however, because donations being tax deductions as opposed to write-offs means that the actual tax burden of the donator is only reduced by the percentage amount of his tax bracket, i.e. by pennies on the dollar.

I think my work is done here.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Pooling the wealth of this country to a single source is asking for a disaster. Not to mention how much is taken off the top in handling fee that never makes it back to the people. I?m betting efficiency is not a bloated bureaucracy?s strong point.

Pooling the wealth to the hands of the public with democracy is better than pooling to a few people who are not elected or accountable at all.

Having half the nation's wealth controlled by 1% of the people is not a good thing for the other 99%.

You want to talk handling fees, that's what privatization gives you; for example, handling fees would go up at least 200% for social security over the very low rates they are now.

Government can do some things far more efficiently than the private sector; those who fall for propaganda don't know that, because only the private sector can invest in the propaganda to say otherwise, since they stand to make a profit by fooling people, while the government has a low budget for marketing the counter-message.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

And if it dries up then what? You proved a point while people who use these charities are stuck?

We elect the people who choose how this is done, it is called democracy, if you think the govt is inefficient then vote said person out, there is no real oversight in how a church uses our monies, whereas I can go look it up, take part and vote if I see wrong in the system.


Vic and Genx:


Commies for christers!

Raah raah goooo religious welfare!

You keep coming back to this straw man, as though every private charity is religious. I think the United Way, Meals on Wheels, Goodwill, etc. would be very surprised to hear this.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
The reason charitable donations are tax deductible (NOT write-offs, there is a difference but I don't expect rot to understand it) is because every dollar given privately to charities is a dollar that the government doesn't have to fund to charities (or social program equivalents). The government still comes out ahead, however, because donations being tax deductions as opposed to write-offs means that the actual tax burden of the donator is only reduced by the percentage amount of his tax bracket, i.e. by pennies on the dollar.

I think my work is done here.

I would much rather have my tax money in the hands of accountable publicly elected representatives then some fundie wingnuts in a texas church.

Enjoy your welfare state, If I was down and out though, I would much rather go apply for a check then have to beg and pray in some church to feed my family.

But then you wouldn't actually know anything about being a independent person would you?

You all have already said if things get bad we all should just go home and leech off our famlies like in the "good old days" before SS evil socialism :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Pooling the wealth of this country to a single source is asking for a disaster. Not to mention how much is taken off the top in handling fee that never makes it back to the people. I?m betting efficiency is not a bloated bureaucracy?s strong point.

Pooling the wealth to the hands of the public with democracy is better than pooling to a few people who are not elected or accountable at all.

Having half the nation's wealth controlled by 1% of the people is not a good thing for the other 99%.

You want to talk handling fees, that's what privatization gives you; for example, handling fees would go up at least 200% for social security over the very low rates they are now.

Government can do some things far more efficiently than the private sector; those who fall for propaganda don't know that, because only the private sector can invest in the propaganda to say otherwise, since they stand to make a profit by fooling people, while the government has a low budget for marketing the counter-message.

I think the issue here is not what you think it is, but a dispute over the definition of "democracy."

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 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.

WOW, you mean somebody even takes John Stossel seriously? He's a bigger tool/fool then Rush.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here is a clue for you, relative old people in the 1800s didnt die in the streets either. This was well before the modern welfare system was erected.

As usual, you are wrong. Elder poverty was the norm and horrific in the US before social security. Read your history sometime.

We arent talking poverty bumbo, we are talking about elderly keeling over in the streets.

So, you're saying that their keeling over in their destitute, barren shacks was different than in the streets? I don't see the point to that distinction. Bumbo. Whatever bumbo is.

 

[Balt]

A person is defined by more than a dollar amount given to a charity. I don't care if Cheney gave every cent of his fortune away, he's a bad person who has done great harm to this country with the aid of his neocon friends.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Bumbo. Whatever bumbo is.

I think it is Texan for "I have no clue wtf I am talking about so I am going to use a dumbass word like bumbo"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
The reason charitable donations are tax deductible (NOT write-offs, there is a difference but I don't expect rot to understand it) is because every dollar given privately to charities is a dollar that the government doesn't have to fund to charities (or social program equivalents). The government still comes out ahead, however, because donations being tax deductions as opposed to write-offs means that the actual tax burden of the donator is only reduced by the percentage amount of his tax bracket, i.e. by pennies on the dollar.

I think my work is done here.

I would much rather have my tax money in the hands of accountable publicly elected representatives then some fundie wingnuts in a texas church.

Enjoy your welfare state, If I was down and out though, I would much rather go apply for a check then have to beg and pray in some church to feed my family.

But then you wouldn't actually know anything about being a independent person would you?

Okay...
1. You didn't address my point, you just sidetracked from it. No surprise given that I proved wrong your earlier argument about the tax deductible status and nature of charitable donations.
2. You moved your entire argument into something along the lines of throwing the baby out with the bath water. In other words, because you don't like the way some people choose to give, you feel all giving should be dictated according to the way you like it, and that you should be allowed to use the force of government in order to do such. That is about as undemocratic as attitude as I have ever seen.
3. You then straw man about how you would like to receive charity should you need it, as though that has anything to do with my arguments, or as if I would want to prevent you in some fashion (when I have said nothing of the sort), and then rant about how you're some kind of independent person in order to cover up for what is obviously some of these most bitter selfishness that I am sure anyone here has ever seen.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

And if it dries up then what? You proved a point while people who use these charities are stuck?

We elect the people who choose how this is done, it is called democracy, if you think the govt is inefficient then vote said person out, there is no real oversight in how a church uses our monies, whereas I can go look it up, take part and vote if I see wrong in the system.


Vic and Genx:


Commies for christers!

Raah raah goooo religious welfare!

Yea, look at the iron grip the radical religious right has on all US charaties: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/14/pf_...est-U.S.-Charities_TotalRev_print.html

Those damn people at the Mayo Clinic, or the Red Cross, the Boy's and Girl's Club, Goodwill, Caner Society, and the ever diabolical YMCA are out to get you Steep.

At least they ask me for my money rather than my government thrusting its hand into my pocket demanding it. :roll: