[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You know, no conservative has ever given any money to charity. [/quote]
Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly get any more retarded.
[/quote]
Making stupid, sweeping generalizations sure is annoying, isn’t it? How come no one complained when Maximus did it?[/quote]
That is because “conservatives” give more toi charity than “liberals”, always have, always will.
Funny how that works, huh?
Those people who think that “the government” should fix it cannot be bothered to use their own time and money to help their fellow human beings whereas right wing, religious nutjobs make it their personal responsibility.[/quote]
Prove it. This is not Mises.org, when you make a positive statement, you need to back it up.
Otherwise, I could just continue to say, “Liberals give 10,000x more to charity than conservatives,” and you couldn’t argue with me.
[/quote]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Conservatives more liberal givers
March 27, 2008
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
When I think about what Al Gore’s income must be and how little of it he is willing to give away to help make a personal difference in changing the wrongs that almost all of us would agree exist in this country, well, it pisses me off. That anyone can admire this man – this very embodiment of hypocrisy (in a wide range of disciplines) – amazes me.
This is the same guy who castigates the rest of us for the little things we do in our everyday lives and yet whose carbon footprint would stamp a ****ed-fancy tootsie-size swimming pool that all of our kids (and all of their friends) could splash in.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18218
Conservative vs Liberal Ideologies
All of you have heard the saying: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Conservatives not only want to teach all citizens to fish, Conservatives want to make sure that everyone has a fishing pole and they want to make sure that the river is loaded with fish, so that anyone who is willing to fish cannot help catching all the fish he wants. Liberals, on the other hand, want the government to catch all the fish and they want the American people to have to go to the government and ask for a fish. What liberals want is the definition oof 'SOCIALISM'.
Conservatives want to create a situation where anyone who is willing and able to work can find a well paying job. Liberals don't want that because it would create a situation where no one would need their liberal programs and no one would need them, hence (10% unemployment and rising under Obamanomics).
If you hear a liberal talking about the founding fathers of our country, you'll notice they they don't say anything positive about them: Jessie Jackson, "Ho..Ho..Ho..Western Civilization has got to Go". There is a reason for this. The Constitution and government the founding fathers gave this country is the exact opposite of what liberals believe in.
The religion of liberals is big government. Most of the citizens of the United States are Christians. Why do you think liberals oppose prayer in schools? Why do liberals oppose displays of the 10 Commandments? Christianity flies in the face of the religion of big government.
What liberals fail to understand is that the Invisible Hand of the marketplace works much better than the heavy hand of the government in solving problems of individuals as well as the problems of society. While Ronald Reagan's tax cuts caused revenue to the government to double, charitable contributions tripled.
What Conservatives offer the citizens of this country is the freedom to live their lives as they wish to live them.
http://philanthropy.com/article/Charitys-Political-Divide/54871/
