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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern

Responses from those like Craig234 clearly demonstrate that they believe YOUR money should be donated (Raise taxes on the rich - who are all Repubs.). They enjoy making YOU donate and THEM having control (via the government) over how YOUR donation is spent.

Fern

It's easy to use hyperbole to make it sound tyrannical. Why, to pay for that 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska, there were ARMED MEN THREATENING JAIL to force me to pay!

Tyranny, I tell you!

In the real world, too many citizens lack the basic concept of how it works better for there to be a system for everyone to pay some taxes for things for the common good.

The problem is that too many private interests - see the K street project with republicans - have made the system overly dependant on their donations and under-dependant on the voters' interests, with the money paying to basically brainwash the public both directly about candidates ("AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET WHAT A LIAR!!1!1!!") and indirectly to indoctrinate them to ideology (REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF SMALL EFFICIENCT GOVERNMENT, GIVING TO THE WEALTHY MAKES YOU RICHER).

The right wing paints a fantasy as the alternative to the democrats - a nation where taxes will be lower and people more prosperous, the 'big government' replaced by a vacuum.

However, that won't happen; the real alternative looks more like the days of the robber barons, and we're already seeing the effect with the increased concetrations in wealth, the less effective democratic governments, the unaccountable ultra wealthy class and corporations who can use capital to make nations compete and grow ever more wealthy and powerful.

We're returning to the days of our revolution when the English government was in cahoots with the largest corporation in the world to screw the public; variations will be seen from China with its growing industries, with Russia - we already see Putin plaing the power games trying to assassinate billionares who don't cut the government in - and in the US where the government becomes basically an arm of the corporations, elections controlled enough by money that they have the say and real 'independants' can't get elected.

The victories of our founding fathers in giving the power of the nation to the people are being undone before our, you can see it in the posts here attacking elected government.

Short-sighted ideology will harm our democracy. Not many know that perhaps the major motivator of Reagan's right-wing jihad against government was resentment over taxes.

Of course we all hate excessive taxes, government, waste, but the problem is that there is big money distorting people's views of where the waste really is.

A well-run public facility again and again is 'raped' by a privatizing interest who spends the money to 'sell' the plan, the public interest unable to spend the same to make the otehr side of the case, they get it, grab the dollars, spend more to explain away the problems as not their fault, and leave the empty husk behind while they go to the bank. Too many people are foolish and allow it.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If it came down to it, I would rather live with smelly hippies in the woods at a rainbow gathering then live in some utopian libertarian society of greed and non-cooperation, thanks.

I'm confused as to your definition of greed. You want things to be a certain way, yet you would have the government dictate all of society and make them cough up their time and money to fit your ideal view instead of doing it yourself?

 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
neo-con neo-libertarian whatever, it's a new name to hide the same stench of right-wing BS.

No, I think that it's just a case of anybody who doesn't agree with your point of view must be a foul-smelling, greedy Republican.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If it came down to it, I would rather live with smelly hippies in the woods at a rainbow gathering then live in some utopian libertarian society of greed and non-cooperation, thanks.

I'm confused as to your definition of greed. You want things to be a certain way, yet you would have the government dictate all of society and make them cough up their time and money to fit your ideal view instead of doing it yourself?



We have something called democracy, you do exert your individual control over what is done and where taxes go, but no, you as a individual cannot have it your way all the time when you are outvoted, yes it sux, but then it is better then any other system before.

Grow up, the world does not revolve around you and you alone, how old are you people? 12?
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Grow up, the world does not revolve around you and you alone, how old are you people? 12?

That's my point. The world (or the U.S. I should say) does not revolve around you and your idea that the government should provide charity. However, we have no choice but to buy into that system. The system is revolving around you and your idea and punishes those who do not wish to follow.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Grow up, the world does not revolve around you and you alone, how old are you people? 12?

That's my point. The world (or the U.S. I should say) does not revolve around you and your idea that the government should provide charity. However, we have no choice but to buy into that system. The system is revolving around you and your idea and punishes those who do not wish to follow.

Emigrate? Noone is stopping you if you can't handle helping others and contributing, oh yeah, make sure not to use any roads or any other infrastructure americans paid for on the way out also. See ya! Enjoy your libertarian third world paradise of rugged individualism. (THat is until the natives of whatever godforsaken hole you moved to climbs over your "personal property's" walls and does some good old fashioned wealth redistribution, then you will be crying about tyranny heh.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Emigrate? Noone is stopping you if you can't handle helping others, make sure not to use any roads or any other infrastructure americans paid for on the way out also. See ya!

Roads are something I use and are built with money from my taxes. They are public property and anyone who drives on them pays their share for them. Completely different.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
They are public property and anyone who drives on them pays their share for them. Completely different.

Ha ha Commie.


I have no car, haven't for 12 years, and I still pay, you know why? Because in the big picture others need them to to fulfill free prosperous lives of their own choosing, so thus I am doing my part even though I derive no short term benefit.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Steeplerot


No, I do not donate my money for tax writeoffs, .

This "tax write off" argument you and others are making is just rediculous. You still have to make the money in order to donate it. What is more generous and costly to the donar: Donating 100% of it to a charity thus paying in effect 100% tax on that dollar or putting the money in the bank, buying a new car..whatever.. and only paying 20-35% to the IRS?

If you can show me how donating to charity saves you money I'd like to see it.

Granted if you take an inflated tax deduction on cothes/cars, etc you can save yourself a couple hundred a year but that's not what we're talking about here.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: 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.


I agree with your overall assessment but that doesn't answer the question. Are the poor ones doing the giving or the rich ones? The income disparity between the richest republican and the poorest is probably just as large as between the poor and rich and general.
 

Satchel

Member
Mar 19, 2003
105
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
They are public property and anyone who drives on them pays their share for them. Completely different.

Ha ha Commie.


I have no car, haven't for 12 years, and I still pay, you know why? Because in the big picture others need them to to fulfill free prosperous lives of their own choosing, so thus I am doing my part even though I derive no short term benefit.
You sound as if it is your choice whether to pay or not. The reality is that you pay because you are being taxed by the government.

Let me ask you a question. If the construction and maintenance of roads were funded solely by private donations, would you choose to pay even though you derive no benefit from them?
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
76
Has anyone considered that conservatives give more because conservatives HAVE more? Why is this a raw-numbers comparison and not a percentage of income comparison?

Also, what specifically counts as a charity? For example, all the liberals I know give generously to PBS.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Vic
Is it all partisan hackery with you? The DNC is no more what you think it is than the GOP and Bush admin were what the Pubs thought they were getting. The on-going stategy of the 2 major parties is to represent themselves as the only possible choices, and then have power switch back and forth between them every decade or so on rising currents of public discontent, so that the public is always voting in fear and anger against the other guys as opposed to actually for anyone. If you can't see this obvious fact, and the purpose behind the strategy, then by your own logic you must be the most blissful person in the world.



So, all dems are far left fools, yet you are a libertarian whackjob whos party cannot even beat the greens.

Whatever vic, you are a far out there wingnut, far far more then any dems you call socialists luckily you represent noone but yourself and a few other bigmouths pounding away from their their moms basements about how you do not owe the world anything..

Freedum!! rugged induhvidualists! Stop fighting the power and THE MAN/evil socialists already and go take out the trash.



Vic is not alone in seeing this all as big "distraction" by the two parties to fool Americans. And judging by your response - it is working.

E.g., I suppose you think the Dems will get rid of "pork", insteading of just shifting it to their constiuents?

Fern

We shall see, they are not in power yet, I am sure plenty of people are mad atm, problem is vast majority vote in reps and dems, and the ones b1tching nowdays looking for a third party are the losers, these neo-libertarians should fix their real party first before they try to hijack a third party with the same greed mongering BS that ruined the reps, it is the mindest that is flawed, like the old saying goes: "Those that hate government the most are the worst at running it."

Bigmouths like Genx, Vic and Daniel are marginalized,they can rant all they want, but this country is pretty middle of the road and that is not a bad thing in the long run.

The thing is rot is that you are so far from the "middle of the road" it's not funny. In fact, with my classical liberal views and my non-partisan stance, I am certain that I am far closer to the middle of that road than you are with radical ultra-leftist views. Your usual tactic of painting me into a corner with your perceptions of me is just another bit of distraction, but very few are fooled.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: 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?



Nothing you have or ever earned is due to yourself alone, if you don't like it, could I interest you, the concerned "libertarian" types one this winters glamourous new line of teepees?

Go liberate your mom's trash from the can you rugged individualists.

I am pretty sure society and the govt and especially you didnt get me into college, get a degree, and get a job.

So you've gone to private schools and universities your entire life w/o any financial assistance? Did you have parents who were able to afford it or did you have a job at the age of 5 to pay for your private school?

I always went to public schools, but your argument here doesn't make sense. Being locally funded for the most part, public schools are paid for by the parents of the children who go there. Just because your parents didn't cut the check directly doesn't mean they still didn't pay for it.

Public schools are paid for by the parents of the children who go there as well as everyone else. You don't get to opt out of property taxes if you send your children to private school or if you don't even have any. Basically, public schools survive on subsidies not only of the people who use them. You received the benefit of that.

My point was that the money doesn't grow on trees or fall from heaven. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. As it is, public education is as necessary to a free democracy as are public roads, and serve the same purpose. Neither is a form of wealth distribution, charity, or anything even remotely close to that. My own political hero, Thomas Jefferson, was prouder of having established the first public university in the US (Virginia) than he was of having written the Declaration of Independence.
The idea that anyone "owes" anyone else for their public education -- when the people pay for public education out of the most selfish of motives -- is simply ridiculous.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I agree with your overall assessment but that doesn't answer the question. Are the poor ones doing the giving or the rich ones? The income disparity between the richest republican and the poorest is probably just as large as between the poor and rich and general.

That is of course true. But this study took into account income and as already stated you cannot relate income and political idealology.

This study looked at conservative vs. liberal regardless of income and found that conservatives give more. It's just like why conservatives are more happy. It's fact.

Anybody with basic psychology understands this and understands why.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If it came down to it, I would rather live with smelly hippies in the woods at a rainbow gathering then live in some utopian libertarian society of greed and non-cooperation, thanks.
I'm confused as to your definition of greed. You want things to be a certain way, yet you would have the government dictate all of society and make them cough up their time and money to fit your ideal view instead of doing it yourself?
As a reactionary socialist, rot is a bit confused over the distinctions of what the noted political philosopher Isaiah Berlin coined as positive and negative liberties. Positive liberty, which rot most often triumphs but which is questionable as whether it is actually a liberty per se, is a guarantee of opportunity, or the guarnateed freedom to achieve certain ends. Negative liberty OTOH is described as the freedom from unwarranted coercion, which is what most people most often think of when they think of liberty and freedom, i.e. the right to be able to choose for oneself.
Isaiah Berlin, himself perhaps the greatest liberal thinker of the 20th century, was deeply troubled by the notion of positive liberty, because he felt it would inevitably lead to the state forcing on the people a particular way of life, because it would become the opinion that only the state could be capable of judging the most rational way of life, i.e. the so-called "cradle to the grave" welfare state. rot's radicalism reflects this. He knows the way that we all should live, and is so certain that it is the right way that he has no moral issue with forcing it on the rest of us. If we disagree, it is only because (in his mind) we are evil, and not because of a difference of opinion as to what is actually in the "common good."
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
In fact, with my classical liberal views and my non-partisan stance, I am certain that I am far closer to the middle of that road than you are with radical ultra-leftist views.

Is being "close to the middle" actually meaningful? All it means is that one's political views fall somewhere to the middle of both the left and the right. I see no reason why a moderate would be any less biased than a "radical ultra-leftist" or a radical rightwinger.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Vic He knows the way that we all should live, and is so certain that it is the right way that he has no moral issue with forcing it on the rest of us. If we disagree, it is only because (in his mind) we are evil, and not because of a difference of opinion as to what is actually in the "common good."

That's the best summary of Rot, yet.

In his mind, from what I can tell, is that all people are inherently evil. Greedy, self-minded people. And they always will be. He sees this as being a realist, rather than what he really is, a pessimist. Thus his quote in your sig, which I, and I'm sure others as well, find almost terrifying, although unfortunately, maybe not surprising.

Those who have no faith in themselves rarely have faith in others.

It is sad, really. I kinda feel sorry for him.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
The tax write-off argument is one of the stupidest I've heard. A tax write-off just makes giving to charity cheaper, it doesn't make it free or give you money. If you give $100, you save $35 in taxes meaning it still costs $65 to give to charity.

Sure, it encourages charitable giving but it definitely isn't the sole reason for it as it still costs money to give to charity.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic He knows the way that we all should live, and is so certain that it is the right way that he has no moral issue with forcing it on the rest of us. If we disagree, it is only because (in his mind) we are evil, and not because of a difference of opinion as to what is actually in the "common good."

That's the best summary of Rot, yet.

In his mind, from what I can tell, is that all people are inherently evil. Greedy, self-minded people. And they always will be. He sees this as being a realist, rather than what he really is, a pessimist. Thus his quote in your sig, which I, and I'm sure others as well, find almost terrifying, although unfortunately, maybe not surprising.

Those who have no faith in themselves rarely have faith in others.

It is sad, really. I kinda feel sorry for him.



Both of you are idiots, he used a misquote of mine.

"It takes authority to delegate fairness in a state."

Of course vic being full of sh1t as usual jumped at the opportunity to call someone out like the drama queen he is over something mistyped.

And noone is "Forcing" anything on you, you can vote on what you please, I don't hate anyone in this forum, but I think a few of you are paranoid wingnuts listening to some pretty stupid unbalanced people.

Vic, go fvckoff already, what are you going to do? throw a e-thug fit again and threaten to kick someones ass in here?

You are a dumb ass for quoting people in your sig, but it figures you have nothing except to try to misconstrue and throw up stupid catchphrases like liberties to naive followers of right wing circle jerk.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Tax write offs...

My family donated about 12-16 bags of used clothes and 4 bags of shoes to the Salvation Army 2 years ago...
We got at least $2000 off our taxes...MUCH more than what those bag of "used" trash were worth.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic He knows the way that we all should live, and is so certain that it is the right way that he has no moral issue with forcing it on the rest of us. If we disagree, it is only because (in his mind) we are evil, and not because of a difference of opinion as to what is actually in the "common good."

That's the best summary of Rot, yet.

In his mind, from what I can tell, is that all people are inherently evil. Greedy, self-minded people. And they always will be. He sees this as being a realist, rather than what he really is, a pessimist. Thus his quote in your sig, which I, and I'm sure others as well, find almost terrifying, although unfortunately, maybe not surprising.

Those who have no faith in themselves rarely have faith in others.

It is sad, really. I kinda feel sorry for him.

Both of you are idiots, he used a misquote of mine.

"It takes authority to delegate fairness in a state."

Of course vic being full of sh1t as usual jumped at the opportunity to call someone out like the drama queen he is over something mistyped.

And noone is "Forcing" anything on you, you can vote on what you please, I don't hate anyone in this forum, but I think a few of you are paranoid wingnuts listening to some pretty stupid unbalanced people.

Vic, go fvckoff already, what are you going to do? throw a e-thug fit again and threaten to kick someones ass in here?

You are a dumb ass for quoting people in your sig, but it figures you have nothing except to try to misconstrue and throw up stupid catchphrases like liberties to naive followers of right wing circle jerk.

The quote in my sig is exact, right down to the misspellings, and is in complete context. If you meant it otherwise, then you should think and consider before you click reply.

I have NEVER threaten to kick someone's ass in here. NEVER. Thanks for telling me to fvckoff though getting all e-thug yourself though.

I'm not a right-winger, unless you believe that someone who defends all freedoms equally as a right-winger. Hell, I typically vote Democrat. I opposed GW in 2000 and 2004 and I've even protested the Iraq War and marched for gay rights. You don't have a clue.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Lothar
Tax write offs...

My family donated about 12-16 bags of used clothes and 4 bags of shoes to the Salvation Army 2 years ago...
We got at least $2000 off our taxes...MUCH more than what those bag of "used" trash were worth.

I hope you don't get audited. An expert appraisal is required for donated goods valued in excess of $500.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |