Conservatives give more to charity than liberals

Originally posted by kro32
Yes but Greenpeace get's their own tv show to save whales. Worth every cent

Now you have something against whales?
Why doesn't this surprise me?
Maybe you would like to see Whales battle it out to the death along with your gladiator shows?
I am sensing a pattern. Years ago they pit bears and lions against tigers and leopards, just to see who came out on top. It is a flagrant disregard and disrespect for life. It is brutal and ignorant aggression for the sake of entertainment. It is how stupid people entertain themselves when they are not smart enough or ambitious enough to expand their mind.

reply to post by Gannicus


Until donators stop getting tax breaks, any donation stats are irrelevant and are just another false feather in their cap.

You know, it is hard to read these stats and get a real picture...

I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative.... my political compass places me in the same general range as Ghandi. I rarely donate money or time to "charities". Instead, I work person to person with people. I have supported one friend for over a year first while he was unemployeed then after he got a job but was underemployeed (crappy minimum wage gig). We gave him free room and board in our house and he payed us back by helping keeping the house clean and taking care of the animals. No tax breaks there, but at least this one human survived long enough to build up savings and get through this dark period in his life.

This is the sort of "charity" we do. It is not for tax breaks -- it's just the right thing to do (for us). If a poll taker were to ask me about charities, this wouldn't count, ya know..

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


But since I've conditioned myself, it's not like I'm even thinking about helping people, and can still be isolated from suffering. Most cases just drop in my lap, and I don't think of it as charity work but just another facet of who and what I am. Sometimes I think that it would be nice to still be in the newest part of the phase where everything is still a conscious decision--although it would mean far less people get help from me and mine.

Since I live in an aread where people habitually only tip 10%, the "big tops" usually have 2 servers, and 10% is only 5% apiece, while these guys aren't getting as many tables to deal with a big crowd, in a lot of cases that 18% gratuity is very needed. It just doesn't help when the people who are paying are 20-30% tippers.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by LazyGuy
My personal opinion, the Republicans give to charity so they can wright it off on taxes.
With the lax rules of verifying donations I'd bet that less than 1/2 of donations claimed are actually legitimate.

And Democrats don't? That's a bit naieve.

Besides that's overlooking the variance in blood donations. You can't write those off as a tax deduction.

Yea, but blood donations don't cost any money.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
While I think there may be something to both sides of the stories, it has been shown that 86.5% of statistics are made up.

I totally agree. Statistics can easily be cherry picked or manipulated.

I saw where 14% of the people wholeheartedly agree with and support congress.
Can there really be that many idiots out there? How do they survive? I'd think someone of such limited intelligence would forget to breath.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Do churches count as charities?

If so, I can see why conservatives donate more than liberals. Conservatives are more likely to be church goers who give large amounts of their income to their churches. While many churches spend much of the money they get on charitable acts like feeding homeless people, much of the money that goes into church coffers goes towards things like buying ministers' vacation homes.

This is a yes & no situation:

Catholic Charities is a church run Charity, and they often set up special donation drives in their congregations. But their everyday donations are predominantly for running the Church. Buildings, youth programs, educational courses, retreats, salaries, insurance, transportation, etc. All that stuff requires money just to be a functional organization. But if you walk into any given congregation, most off them have their money charts and whatnot--they have little to no problem showing where money goes.

Minor benevolence never shows up in the statistics. Our congregation agreed to automatically setting aside $50 per case by case charity need without having to go and vote on every single thing that happens. We set aside roughly $250 a month for this service. We have a traveling wealthy couple that is willing to cover any needs we cannot meet automatically--all we have to do is ask--so it's not like that limit means a single thing. I know that our money, overall will not show up in these kind of statistics, although we are a Non Profit. We don't report our money to anyone. Now, when we donate money to something like the Church of Christ Disaster Relief Program, as a congregation, that shows up--on their end, not ours.

I think Dennis Miller said it best" We believe in helping the helpless, but don't want to support the clueless"

reply to post by kro32


Sorry, I'm far more cold-hearted than that to ever be GUILTED into anything. That's not how I work. I'm a registered Republican--the vast majority of Republicans are more liberal than I am. I'm a Christian who hates governemnt programs, and I'm not giving another cent more to welfare than what the government can squeeze out of me.

That being said, I'm not going to watch someone starve to death irrelevant of whether or not welfare is involved. It has nothing to do with guilt, but with compassion.

Guilt paralyzes you, heavy guilt makes you try to rationalize your way out of the feeling. Put it to you this way: I can't tell you how many wifebeaters feel guilty for beating their sposuses--to the point of abjectly apologising, then blaming their spouse because they cannot live with the burden being theirs alone. Guilt without compassion is nothing. Compassion without guilt is free to do it's job without being weighed down. Compassion comes from having been there, or from never wanting to be there and being greatful that you've never experienced what this person is going through--yet unwilling to let them wallow in it.

Put it to you this way: Has your guilt ever made you more charitable? If it doesn't work for you, why in the world would you assume that it works for someone else?

Originally posted by vexati0n
The only problem I have with strictly relying on the Public to fund charities is that too often, the charities who benefit from these donations have some absurd religious or moral requirement of the people it helps in turn. If I fall on hard times, I recognize that it is not necessarily anyone's legal responsibility to help me back up. But I also recognize that if I am to be helped, it should not be at the business end of some ridiculous "say you love Jesus first" ultimatum.

And the governemnt ones fund exactly the opposite side--reward lazy evil obonoxious behavior because it ensures a voting base of sheeple. So this is a lose-lose situation.

reply to post by Peteos


Blood donations aren't taxed. Demographics are still the same.

But.... but I thought conservatives were all heartless people because we don't agree with the entitlement system where money is stolen from individuals.

At least that's what people tell me all the time
Where's thewalkingfox, he told me I believe in "Screw em and let them die" in my entitlement system thread.

reply to post by LazyGuy


They do. Time is money. Transport to a blood drive is money. How much you may bleed tomorrow for set against what you donate today is a bartering transaction. How lightheaded you are going into work after donating can cut your shift short--that's happened to me, and that wasn't even a pint--it was 11 vials for blood tests. If there's any "easy" about giving blood it is because people weigh the value of saving a life with this blood as being far more valuable than the rest. If you're lucky and can give while being paid on the clock (like my hubby's workplace, once every 3 months or so), then it is a moot point--but those jobs are rare.

reply to post by Gannicus


Conservatives, having a disdain for big government and taxes are more likely to be dihonest regarding their charitable contributions, both on tax returns and in general discourse.

Conservatives are also far more likely to contribute to a church or tele-evangalist, and while those funds might be considered "technically" charitable contributions, at best they end up buying a granola bar for a starving child as long as he shouts "I love Jesus!" and at worst supports a lavish lifestyle or a coc aine and hooker habit for the church leader.

Ted Haggard

leader of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) from 2003 until November 2006.

In November 2006, escort and masseur Mike Jones alleged that Haggard had paid him to engage in sex with him for three years and had also purchased and used crystal methamphetamine.[1] A few days later Haggard resigned from all of his leadership positions.

After the scandal was publicized, Haggard entered three weeks of intensive counseling, overseen by four ministers.

en.wikipedia.org...

So I guess this would boil down to honesty in actual contributions and what defines "Charitable" contributions.

This is a complete joke. Take away the write off incentives and let's see how much conservatives give.

Seriously? C'mon. You know perfectly well that conservatives sole concern is profit or anything fiscally sound. Their giving to charity isn't compassion. It's a sound investment.

reply to post by spinalremain


....and you know perfectly well liberals only support govt. handouts to ensure votes. It has NOTHING to do with "compassion" or "empathy".