It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

hmmm... I'm not allowed to use a catchy title i guess... Here are some FACTS about the RED states.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Republicans have for a long time been portrayed as greedy, heartless, close-minded, religious zealots that don't care about the poor. While the Democrats stick with their guns and say they are caring, generous, open-minded, and concerned with the well being of all.

Here are some web sites that show an interesting fact about the red states.

michellemalkin.com...
www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org...
www.regent.edu...

I would like you to notice the .org and .edu web sites I've included; Ive yet to see one of those for the infamous I.Q. chart introduced by Howard Stern and flung around this site as factual.

Did you know that Americans donated 1.6% of their income (the highest number in the world) to charities while Canadians only donated .6%?

www.fraserinstitute.ca...

Read up on the Fraser institute before you knock it, here is a quote giving you a basic idea of what it's about...

The Fraser Institute has been changing the way people think about government and the role of markets for over 30 years. Today, government committees, MPs, the media, and think tanks around the world turn to the Institute for their innovative ideas and solutions. In raising the level of understanding about economic and social policy, the Institute's ideas contribute directly to the economic well-being of individual Canadians.

And so, who is more generous? The "Generosity Index" says Conservatives are. And the flow of history suggests that Conservative ideals have on the whole played a more prominent role in aiding America's less fortunate.

I hope this post doesn't get moved to the trash bin like my last one as it does contain some interesting facts that need to be answered.




posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Dude if you only knew how many I have in the bin!


I am interested in the reply to American generosity, I thought we are all blood-oil thristy devils.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
* Cough Cough*

The overwelming generosity is only overshadowed by their peaceful hearts.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
* Cough Cough*

The overwelming generosity is only overshadowed by their peaceful hearts.


This topic doesn't pertain to the war, could you please keep that hot topic in the correct thread. I did notice you couldn't come back with anything knocking the facts i posted however.


You know my opinion on the war already dgtempe, and you know it has nothing to do with conservatives not having peaceful hearts. We just know that the terrorists see "peaceful" hearts as a weakness and a vulnerablility they would exploit. Now can we please keep this on subject?



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
We just know that the terrorists see "peaceful" hearts as a weakness and a vulnerablility they would exploit. Now can we please keep this on subject?

Maybe off subject but will leave it at this. If you feel that being hardened and forceful, which I assume are contrary to the American way of thinking, then the terrorists have won. They have made you change your ideology, your mindset and your way of life. God bless America. And I mean that without sarcasm, for a great nation is being drawn into a mind game by lesser people and they are winning because you are succumbing to their plan.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
In other words...you only want feedback from conservatives?



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Actually, we are a generous people. Not just the Christians or the Republicans (not that you are claiming that).

We pack in more aid overseas than many governments do. No one ever said we are monsters.

There is a very big difference between the government and the people (i.e. France, although they are slightly more because of government controled media.)

But that means nothing when talking about the right direction for America. It neither denounces socialism (which I guess was the point), nor does it enable what we have now (which is not a capitalist nation, regardless of who's in the white house)



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
In other words...you only want feedback from conservatives?


no dgtempe, I want feedback from liberals. They need to see the facts. Quit twisting my words around into something completely different. Why is it that Republicans are still regarded as greedy, heartless, close-minded, religious zealots that don't care about the poor?

Why are Americans in general portrayed as the same by the rest of the world?


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
But that means nothing when talking about the right direction for America. It neither denounces socialism (which I guess was the point), nor does it enable what we have now (which is not a capitalist nation, regardless of who's in the white house)


I did mean it to denounce socialism, liberalism, big government; did you read the .edu link i provided? Its an interesting read.


[edit on 15-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I think it's all pretty simple actually. Conservatives and Liberals are really not that much different. The increasing divide between America is due to the fact that everyone concentrates on the differences. I think the media helps with accentuating these.

The majority of Americans, at heart, are generous. There are those that lean hard left and those that lean hard right. But the majority are in the middle somewhere. And this majority has basically the same ideals. They want minimal government involvement with personal lives. They want a family and a secure future. They want friends and neighbors they can trust. They want a system that works to protect the good people that make up the majority. And the list goes on. Ask any non-extremist from the left or right and I doubt you'll find anyone (that's sane that is) that would disagree with the above things.

The issue that divides us currently is Iraq. I don't recall an actual Congress signed Declaration of War with Iraq. And if I remember the prez can only use the armed forces for 60 days without this. Then we have the whole "we are already there, we can't leave now thing". This, of course, totally circumvents the issues of legitimacy for the current operation. So, to be fair we can take it from there. We have a historical precedent for this type of conflict, Vietnam. Just as Americans would fight till their last man if they felt their homeland was in danger, so too will the Iraqi's if they feel this way. National pride is a formidable enemy. Of course, we aren't fighting just national pride. We are fighting religious beliefs as well. If the violence was diminishing even by 1% a month I would give more credence to the operation just to get it over with. But the violence is escalating. I would certainly like to believe that if they kill the leaders or kill enough of the "insurgents" the violence will die down. But logic doesn't point in that direction.

I can fully understand how people are enchanted by War; by doing battle for honor. I simply ask that you (noone in particular) let your logic control your emotions instead of the other way around. This way you will know that if you survive you will be able to keep that pride and not have it tainted by an uncaring government that wants to take your benefits and an uncaring population that has long forgotten your sacrafice.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
"And now with George W. Bush, compassionate conservatism emphasizes commingling the historic conservative ideals of personal responsibility and the local community with federal tax dollars, making the latter available to charitable organizations, but generally without federal bureaucratic restrictions."

From this site: www.regent.edu...

All those sites listed refer back to the one with the generosity index.

I think this whole generosity thing for one, is based on percentage of income based on percentage of donations. Poorer people (looks like the southern red states according the the "generosity index") give a larger percent of what they earn. Richer people give a smaller percentage. Okay, proving what? I'd like to see the list of states with dollar amount per capita or some such. I only donate a set amount to "charity". If I earn more, I don't necessarily give more. A smart choice, as bankrupting myself for charity is stupid.

And it looks like he is referring to the whole "compassionate conservatism" thing, where religious organizations are able to operate as charities and also receive federal money for operating social programs, as well as tax-exempt status. Not sure how far along Bush is in implenting this stuff, just that from what I've read he's planning to give money that should be used for head start, TANF (temporary assistance to needy families) and other, formerly government programs, to religious groups. Seems the rationale is that churches will be just as good as a non-religious agency at deciding who gets what.

But from the tone of folks on ATS, I'd hate to be in a position of need and try to get some of my tax dollars back in assistance. Would I have to go to the mission or bible study to get food stamps or employment retraining? All Bush has to do is stay on track cutting funds for government agencies already set up to handle social assistance programs, handing the dough to charitable organizations, and any blue staters unfortunate enough to need some of their tax investment back will be at the mercy of "generous" god-fearing red staters.

Can I get an Amen!!


--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
C'mon... there are thrads dealing with the war. I want answers about this topic posted here... could we please keep the war in the appropriate threads!!!



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saerlaith

I think this whole generosity thing for one, is based on percentage of income based on percentage of donations. Poorer people (looks like the southern red states according the the "generosity index") give a larger percent of what they earn. Richer people give a smaller percentage. Okay, proving what? I'd like to see the list of states with dollar amount per capita or some such. I only donate a set amount to "charity". If I earn more, I don't necessarily give more. A smart choice, as bankrupting myself for charity is stupid.


It is, the red states donate more of their income to charity. The blue wealthier states give less. It shows the red states are more generous then the blue states! Maybe you should find a list with dollar amounts per capita.
I've already done my research.


And it looks like he is referring to the whole "compassionate conservatism" thing, where religious organizations are able to operate as charities and also receive federal money for operating social programs, as well as tax-exempt status. Not sure how far along Bush is in implenting this stuff, just that from what I've read he's planning to give money that should be used for head start, TANF (temporary assistance to needy families) and other, formerly government programs, to religious groups. Seems the rationale is that churches will be just as good as a non-religious agency at deciding who gets what.


Dude, he's cuttiing down the size of the Federal government so we don't have to pay as much taxes. That way the red states can donate even more money to charities. Do you really think that religious establishments will only give help to religious people? They will do just as good a job if not better because they won't be the bureaucratic nightmare that they are now!

Amen!



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
C'mon... there are thrads dealing with the war. I want answers about this topic posted here... could we please keep the war in the appropriate threads!!!



The generosity index is based on charitable contributions. That is way too narrow to form any real basis for debate, in my opinion. There might be people that never heard of charities but do they help their neighbor when a need arises? I don't give to charities because I don't believe all my money is going where it should. I give to people I see every day. I help those around me. And hopefully they will help others when they can. And it's a chain reaction. This is the heart of America.

Sorry for not keeping it on the exact topic before but you did state "Republicans have for a long time been portrayed as greedy, heartless, close-minded, religious zealots that don't care about the poor.". Unfortunately, the chart is too narrow in scope to be proof that the above quoted statement is incorrect. I actually explained in my previous post why the statement is not wholely correct and why this subject is even a topic at this moment. It sure wouldn't be a topic if all the prez did was get some action on the side.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
That is way too narrow to form any real basis for debate, in my opinion.


How is this way to narrow for a debate? Is it because they are facts presented in nice neat rows backed by non-biased web sites? Thats a good way to weasle out of the issue though. I also donate to charities, but I also help my neighbors, little sister in college, and help with "habitat for humanity" here in northern Michigan. I'm also a Republican. What you're saying, if I got this straight, is that the red states -because they donate to charities- must not also be helping out other people in a "non-charity" way? That's absurd!



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Maybe you should find a list with dollar amounts per capita.
I've already done my research.

Dude, he's cuttiing down the size of the Federal government so we don't have to pay as much taxes. That way the red states can donate even more money to charities. Do you really think that religious establishments will only give help to religious people? They will do just as good a job if not better because they won't be the bureaucratic nightmare that they are now!

Amen!


I think the research you've done only illustrates a tiny picture of who gives what to charity, but it's your thread so....

As for paying taxes vs. religious oversight of assistance - I would rather be more European (socialist I think is the republican term for it) and pay whatever taxes it took for everyone to have a fair chance at getting what they need to have a decent life. I think religious charities should only give to their own church members and the causes they deem needy. I think the government should take care of all of it's people though. That's what taxes are for. Religion is for getting believers to whatever heaven they believe in. Spending tax dollars for assistance (charity) is best left as unbiased as possible. By their very nature, religions (and by this I mean the faith-motivated red state folks) are biased against unbelievers.

If people want to be charitable, then that is a personal decision. It should have nothing to do with the government. Bush & Co. want to take away the separation of church and state in too many aspects of life. The way the economy and politics are going, there will come a time when there isn't any funding for what americans count on for help in bad times. Bush & Co. have stated that less government is their goal, but the way that plays out is less help for citizens and more corporate welfare. America is better off with leaders that use the government to better everyone, not just the big money people. America is better off when religion is used to better those that believe in it, not as financial aid when the goverment sells us out to corporations.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Yes, I did read the .edu link. Perhaps it's the Christians, being that was a serious portion of the Presidents vote (which suprises me honestly).

In any case, we don't have Bushies in red states and Kerrites in Blue. It's a mix across the board, so it has little to do with anything.

We can separate Liberals and Conservatives using many different methods, but what really matters are the isses (something lacking greatly in the last election).

In addition, Conservatives will almost always pick charity rather than social programs in policy as well, so it stands to reason that they would give.

Liberals on the otherhand might not as much, thinking all the grand entitlements are really working.

Who knows, but in either case, it'll be a long 4 years if this is all we have to talk about.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Hmmmmm.... I feel exactly the opposite and want less government involvement in my life. I think private companies can do a better job than our government in times of need. They don't have to put up with as much... bureaucratic paperwork and legalities... that the government has to. Things move more quickly and smoothly. Not just religious establishments fall under this, there are lots of non-religious organizations that will spring up as well to provide help in times of need. I don't put much faith in my government to solve our countries problems. I still have faith in the people. The government should go back to what it was set up to do. Protect its citizens... and thats all.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
How is this way to narrow for a debate? Is it because they are facts presented in nice neat rows backed by non-biased web sites?


As far as I can tell from digging through the sites you listed, especially the .edu one, they are biased sites. Perhaps if you had some balanced studies, non-religious sites, etc. I could take this as a seriously researched thread. But it looks more like a polite form of evangelizing.

After taking the time to look at your research, it actually makes me more leery of red-stater's "generosity". I'll stick with big government entitlement programs, as long as it's the little person that is entitled.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Um... Dude.... non of these sites are religious or biased. The only one you might argue as biased is the .edu one, but just because of the last comment...

I knew someone would bash my sites as religious or biased, they always do. Even when there not


Yeah... the government has all the answers.


I'll keep my faith in the people.

And I did research it... maybe you should too

[edit on 15-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
That is way too narrow to form any real basis for debate, in my opinion.


How is this way to narrow for a debate? Is it because they are facts presented in nice neat rows backed by non-biased web sites? Thats a good way to weasle out of the issue though. I also donate to charities, but I also help my neighbors, little sister in college, and help with "habitat for humanity" here in northern Michigan. I'm also a Republican. What you're saying, if I got this straight, is that the red states -because they donate to charities- must not also be helping out other people in a "non-charity" way? That's absurd!



That's one big twist. No, I simply said what I said. There was no hidden meaning. If you go by your original post you are inferring that this index makes all accusations (republicans...greedy, heartless, close-minded, religious zealots...) false. I'm simply saying that it doesn't. Notice though that I didn't say the image of republicans is true. I'm just pointing out that giving to charity organizations doesn't make the image false. Show me how giving to charity proves the image is false?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join