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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Here are some web sites that show an interesting fact about the red states.

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

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.



wait....your kidding me, right? you post michelle malkin's website as proof of your claims? She might as well join the KKK, she's so right wing. This is the same person who suggested that all arabs should be put into internment camps, like the japanese during world war 2.


The Fraser Institute is a staunchly neo-classical economic think tank, which has also firmly allied itself with the right wing. If you are going to support republicans, at least reference something that can pass itself off as somewhat moderate.




posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Yeah right... I knw this was going to happen.... whenever you people have some factual data thrown at you you shrug it off as right wing ageda.

If thats how the liberal mind works. Selective hearing. Then I'm glad I'm still on the right side.


philanthropy.org is a biased site? The Fraser Institute is biased? For Gods sake people, look at the facts!!! Republicans arent as greedy and heartless as you've been brainwashed innto thinking.

By the way Saerlaith, you can call Socialism whatever you wanna call it and its still Socialism. The European way will never work in the US.

[edit on 16-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:50 AM
link   
The best way to be charitable to people would be to open up a way for them not to need your charity to begin with!!! Open up a way for them to meet their own needs.

A story recently came out on our local news, tuitions have been increased again. Yet, at the same time, the presidents, the vice presidents of the State Universities have been given another raise, they are getting close to earning a million a year...if they aren't topping that figure! The same can be said of the medical establishments. and probably many other of the industries that cater to the "necessities of life. Ya know, when I was growing up, it wasn't that long ago, not even 50 years, to some of us it was immoral to run heavily into debt! And, my beliefs tend to lean that way. So, my husband had to just about force me to go to the emergency room when I broke my ankle....I knew the gov't wouldn't help us, and I knew if we couldn't afford the treatment, well, we definately couldn't afford the bill!!! And, all the republicans can say is that we should go further into debt and go back to college.....at age 45??? I'm sorry but they may be more concerned about those presidents of the colleges and universities topping 2 million in the next 3 years....but I am not!!!!!



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   
What I think we are looking at here are two different ideologies and it may not be fair to judge conservatives as the most generous on this basis. See, conservatives believe in giving their own money to charitable organizations because they feel it is the right thing to do.

Liberals believe in forcefully taking it and having the government distribute about 10% of it ..if you meet their requirments and are able to wade through all the red tape. The other 90% would be used for "admin cost".

So, I would say beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the liberal ideology collects much more money in the name of helping others..but the strange thing is, when the money comes down to those in need, the amounts from each are comparable.

So, to the most generous contributor, my vote would have to go to the liberals on this one if you don't stipulate it has to be their money they"re contributing.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I guess, as Ive stated before, I would trust my money with private institutions before I entrust my money to the government. If money has to be pried from liberals hands through exessive taxation instead of heartfully being given, I think just proves my case that republicans aren't as greedy as liberals. I wonder how much Micheal Moore contributes to charities? He calls himself a liberal, yet he makes a capital off exploiting the disgruntled Americans in this country.

And Dawnstar, you have to look farther down the road. The economy and education isn't going to change over night. We Republicans have a long road in front of us remolding America into a better, less government dependent country. The government under Democrats evolved into this huge monster slowly making its citizens more dependent on suckling its teats. There is a better way then having to depend on your government. Maybe you won't see it in your lifetime, but hopefully your children will.

The easiest way isn't always the best way.

[edit on 16-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   
If you steal all the money from the poor, you have more money, which means you have more to give back to the poor once you have taken it all.

Devil's Advocate.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Quote:
"I guess, as Ive stated before, I would trust my money with private institutions before I entrust my money to the government."

The people at Enron love you! Watch what happens to your social security if you are allowed to invest it on your own. I am giving you the inside scoop but for those who are unwilling to listen, get ready to live off the land.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
If you steal all the money from the poor, you have more money, which means you have more to give back to the poor once you have taken it all.

Devil's Advocate.


Thats just plain and simply an intelligent and well thought out reply.



Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
The people at Enron love you! Watch what happens to your social security if you are allowed to invest it on your own. I am giving you the inside scoop but for those who are unwilling to listen, get ready to live off the land.


If you can only throw one corrupt private institution like Enron at me you'll have to better. Stuff has already been passed to ensure an Enron scandle can't happen again bro. If you base your opinion on one of millions of private institutions in this country I feel sorry for you.


[edit on 16-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
The liberals saw that there wasn't enough compassionate charity to meet the needs of the poor.....this why the safety nets were established. And, well, for every lazy bum who would rather sit on their buts and do nothing, there's some rich person somewhere able, willing, and ready to make profits from "the poor". To me, the two adendas run side by side, neither really gives a crap about the poor and middle class.....it would please both of them to have all the wealth within the theirs and their buddies hands while dictating to the rest of us just what we deserve and don't deserve...

Of course it does give them a warm and fuzzy feeling when they can hand over checks of large sums of money for their "worthy causes" most of them directed at problems they themselves have created.



[edit on 16-11-2004 by dawnstar]

[edit on 16-11-2004 by dawnstar]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
"If you can only throw one corrupt private institution like Enron at me you'll have to better. Stuff has already been passed to ensure an Enron scandle can't happen again bro. If you base your opinion on one of millions of private institutions in this country I feel sorry for you."

Okay, let's go down the list, Enron, QWEST, Arkadelphia,California Edison, and I could go on and on. These people are here to take your money, SS or not.

Don't feel sorry for me, this 13th generation American comes from the top 1/2 of 1% so I am just telling you what is going to happen. BTW, don't call me bro, there's a good chance my family owns your house.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Sorry bro, I didnt mean to call you bro. I didn't know I was going to offend you by calling you bro.

And I'm glad to hear you may own my house, congrats. Like I said reform is in place for these private institutions, maybe if there wasn't such a huge government there would be less loopholes for them to waddle through. Ii still would trust my money to a private institution over the government anyday.

Sorry......... bro



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Keep investing in the stock market as well. Just push it all in, no better time than now my friend! Also, I would sincerely hope you would play the oil market as well, I am sure there are major profits for you there.

Want some serious advice, watch the price of oil go down by at least 10 bucks a barrel before the first of December. I am giving you some real info here, look at who drove up the price and realize that they are now longer buying, the U.S. Government. The reserves are full, and now the price will fall because the demand will go way down. Yesterday was the last day the feds were buying. From here on it should go back down, should be under $30.00 a barrel by the first of the year.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Don't bust that nut yet, conservatives. I got a few reservations.

First, what all can be considered a "AICD". I.E. what is covered under Average Itemized Charitable Donations. I would love to know. (I have never had to deal with that in taxes.)

Secondly, this thing does not, and perhaps cannot, cover most things charitable. What about the fraternities that do their philanthropy events. Those can't be covered. What about the can drives done at every single school. How about those folks who volunteer time at the Shelters? Or the kids who Adopt-a-Highway? Whenever someone says the view is way too narrow, that's because it is. You cannot have an accurate one of these without including stuff like this.

And the last big one is that many places do these "charitable donations" because it is one of their big tax write-offs. (See companies) There are several companies in the lake area that would only do it for that reason alone.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
And the last big one is that many places do these "charitable donations" because it is one of their big tax write-offs. (See companies) There are several companies in the lake area that would only do it for that reason alone.


I used to work for a company that managed investments for companies too huge to manage their own investments. It was a major eye opener. I had always thought National Public Radio was funded and run by liberal types, but when I saw page after page of these conservative corporate donors investing NPR and calling it donations, I was stunned. The same goes for all kinds of charities. Tons of corporations, and individuals rich enough to form corporations just for the purpose of finding tax shelters to donate to, are writing off millions if not billions of dollars and patting themselves on the back for being "charitable".

It's all about the benjamins. If you look behind any group calling itself a charity, you're going to find really rotten people using them to get tax breaks. So the purpose of a charity might seem sweetness & light on the surface, but if you look behind the scenes, you'll find you're helping evildoers like Enron and Bayer, etc. make even more money off poor folk.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
There is a 'bunch' of Blue voters in those Red states.....maybe they are the ones who gave so much to charity?!!

You may not be the one, but on another thread, conservatives were pitching a fit because the 'proof' was provided by a 'leftist' site....yet your proof of red charity came from a conservative leaning site...right??

I live in one of those "Red" states......I worked for some "Red" folks....they took benefits away from their employees to pay for their own 'private' medical ins., handed out bad checks on payday, after skimming off enough of the cash flow to pay for their own home and cars.....maybe they gave to charity, but they sure were not charitable!



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by frayed1

You may not be the one, but on another thread, conservatives were pitching a fit because the 'proof' was provided by a 'leftist' site....yet your proof of red charity came from a conservative leaning site...right??


Actually i f you look at the site, it is non-biased (how many more times am i going to have to say this?)
And the sites at the top of the list were landslide victories for Bush. The ones in the middle were large victories, and the ones at the bottom were the ones that tend to swing either way from time to time.

Which proves my point... Democrats can't give money away, it had to be pried from their hands by the government. The Republican states are the truly generous ones.

The truth hurts doesn't it?


[edit on 16-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
You folks really are a divided lot aren't you? Now you use charitable donations to prove you are better than your fellow Americans?

Aside from all the ballyhoo, there is much missing in those statistics, such as the separation of corporate donations and private donations. Aside from that, the red states being filled with the religious right walk into church on any given day and while in the midst of some liturgy the donation basket comes around. Of course they all feel compelled to dig into their pockets and tithe away their money to the church as instructed by The Bible, and the church has no obligation to advise them how, when where, why and to whom or what that money was distributed charitably.

But we have an idea don't we? Just take a look at some of those massive and opulent churches and cathedrals, and the beautiful and well appointed homes for the church fathers, living better than most of their congregation.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
The last place I worked at the boss had a thing every christmas where we'd show up for work, spend a good part of the day shopping for toys for tots (spending his money), and then we'd have a nice dinner and go home. The last year I worked there, the medical bills had eaten up most of my paychecks, I was really limping badly, was a refused a raise, and well, my kids didn't have much of a christmas at all...
Just how much do you think I enjoyed doing my boss's charity work?

On a side note, he had to hire three people to do the many different tasks that I was doing.....I was trained in just about every aspect. I think he learned something, the next christmas, there was no shopping spree, instead, they all got christmas bonuses.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
The last place I worked at the boss had a thing every christmas where we'd show up for work, spend a good part of the day shopping for toys for tots (spending his money), and then we'd have a nice dinner and go home. The last year I worked there, the medical bills had eaten up most of my paychecks, I was really limping badly, was a refused a raise, and well, my kids didn't have much of a christmas at all...
Just how much do you think I enjoyed doing my boss's charity work?

On a side note, he had to hire three people to do the many different tasks that I was doing.....I was trained in just about every aspect. I think he learned something, the next christmas, there was no shopping spree, instead, they all got christmas bonuses.


I've got similar experiences with conservative business owners "doing" charity off the backs of their underpaid, struggling workers. Then laying off those workers without a care in the world. In one case, the owners swore up & down there would be no more layoffs. This young man with a new baby then decided to commit to buying a house. That Friday they laid him off. He found out when his severance check was deposited in his account before they made time to actually tell him he was pink-slipped. This same company did the "day of giving" type charity, using employee labor.

It sounds more and more like feudalism in the middle ages. Churches and kings running rampant over the serfs who are stuck, tied to scarce jobs and families needing food. Like I said before, I'd rather elect a government to put my taxes to good use taking care of people, not relying on christian or corporate "judgement".

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It would be like a father, buying all these pretty new dresses and nice designer clothes for 100 kids, but then letting his own go to school in rags....
sorry, businesses should be taking care of their own, those they rely on to produce their profits, before they worry about the rest of the world.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join