Right wingers donate more to charity , and it's not even close!

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2009 19:32
VIEWED: 14332
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:13 PM

Conservatives More Liberal Givers
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 increasi

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:16 PM

Well, they say they give to charity, but when it comes down to it, they often wriggle out of it:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37722&m=693144#693126

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:22 PM

No, they give. The numbers show it. You just have nothing to support your claim.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, they give. The numbers show it. You just have nothing to support your claim.

Uhuh. You've not shown any numbers. You've nothing to support your claim.

Besides, even if it's true, doesn't change the fact that you give nothing, and use charities to make yourself look good, while doing and giving nothing :).

Weasel out of the fact you won't good on your promise any way you want, at the end you've proven yourself nothing but a selfish petty fool, who talks the talk, but won't walk the walk.

On the topic itself, there's no proof that it was conservatives giving that money. It's an aggregate based on the states voting record and donations. That includes the money given by Democrats in those states. As usual you claim something is proven, while the evidence doesn't begin to support that statement.

WHOZIT

Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:06 PM

Left-Wingers need the money for drugs and ugly hookers....it's a fact.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Left-Wingers need the money for drugs and ugly hookers....it's a fact.

So many yo mumma jokes being set up, can't, help it...

YINYANG

Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:01 PM

Do they include "religious tithing" as charity? Because I think that would help explain why conservatives donate so much more - they're more religious. Also, many charities are religious or run by religious organizations, and secularists may be loath to donate to them because they don't want their money going to proselytizing.

Although it is the case that the religious generally have better organizing power than the non-religious, so I think that the religious (and therefore conservatives) being more charitable could be true, but I'd have to know more about how this study was conducted before giving it credibility.

WHOZIT

Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Do they include "religious tithing" as charity? Because I think that would help explain why conservatives donate so much more - they're more religious. Also, many charities are religious or run by religious organizations, and secularists may be loath to donate to them because they don't want their money going to proselytizing.

Although it is the case that the religious generally have better organizing power than the non-religious, so I think that the religious (and therefore conservatives) being more charitable could be true, but I'd have to know more about how this study was conducted before giving it credibility.

They also donate more blood, (I just give money) do you think they care if a Democrat gets their blood if they need it, or would they want it back?

YINYANG

Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
They also donate more blood, (I just give money) do you think they care if a Democrat gets their blood if they need it, or would they want it back?

How much more blood? A drop, an ounce? It doesn't say. And, if it is a significant amount, I'd chalk that up to the better organizational structures the conservatives have, in part because they tend to be more religious.

Also, another reason why conservatives may give more blood is that they are able to - there tend to be more (out) LGBTs among liberals, and gay and bisexual men are barred by the FDA from giving blood if they've had sex with a man anytime after 1977:

http://www.fda.gov/CBER/faq/msmdonor.htm

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Do they include "religious tithing" as charity? Because I think that would help explain why conservatives donate so much more - they're more religious. Also, many charities are religious or run by religious organizations, and secularists may be loath to donate to them because they don't want their money going to proselytizing.

Although it is the case that the religious generally have better organizing power than the non-religious, so I think that the religious (and therefore conservatives) being more charitable could be true, but I'd have to know more about how this study was conducted before giving it credibility.

That's my take. The basis for the study so far is that "Red states" gave more than "Blue States". But that doesn't actually prove anything.

The fact is though that religious people, according to the article, give more to charity, not Conservative people. It just happens that Conservatives tend to be religious. But people like Rapo, who identify themselves as atheist, are in the same group as the godless non-giving liberals...

Anyway. Yeah, churches are charities, and religious people will be giving to them. I wonder how that figures, because going to church for the religious is a social activity, so they're putting in social activity as a charity, while atheists will have social activities they pay for that aren't charities.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:25 PM

Quote:
But people like Rapo, who identify themselves as atheist, are in the same group as the godless non-giving liberals...

Oh, I give. Money and blood. Want my blood donor card # ?

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Oh, I give. Money and blood. Want my blood donor card # ?

Uhuh, sure you do.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Oh, I give. Money and blood. Want my blood donor card # ?

Uhuh, sure you do.

Not as tricky as you think you are. You want me to give specifics, and then accuse me of being braggadocios.

WHOZIT

Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Oh, I give. Money and blood. Want my blood donor card # ?

Uhuh, sure you do.

Not as tricky as you think you are. You want me to give specifics, and then accuse me of being braggadocios.

Maybe if you gave them your blood type, that may shut them up.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:29 AM

They wouldn't believe it I did.

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 12, 2009 9:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not as tricky as you think you are. You want me to give specifics, and then accuse me of being braggadocios.

Braggadocios isn't a word. I never asked you for your blood donor number. The only specifics I asked for were was the receipt where you made good on your promise to donate $500 to charity, something you then clearly said you had never any intention of doing. So clearly not only am I as tricky as I think I am, you and your lies aren't as clever or as watertight as you'd like.

As you are a proven liar, there is no reason to believe you.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:06 AM

The fact I'm having to restate this point to you proves you're a troll. I asked for you to show where you HAD, prior to my posting of the challenge, anywhere in the thread discussed the main subject of news anchor Sanchez and his comments. You failed to do that, and instead tried to slip in a few random comments after the fact.

You failed to meet the obligations of the challenge. As you continue to fail. I've stated this simple fact for you once already, and if you'd taken the time to read my challenge fully, and more slowly, then you'd realize WHY you had failed.

Shows how little you care that you'd go reaching for $$ not yours, not earned, and not even in agreement w/ the posted challenge.

Might be you learn a few things from this lesson, but I'm kinda doubting it.

p.s.

Quote:
Braggadocios isn't a word.

Main Entry: braggadocious
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: overly proud, bragging in excess
Etymology: derivative of the mock-Italian braggadocio meaning 'idle boaster'

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braggadocious

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The fact I'm having to restate this point to you proves you're a troll. I asked for you to show where you HAD, prior to my posting of the challenge, anywhere in the thread discussed the main subject of news anchor Sanchez and his comments. You failed to do that, and instead tried to slip in a few random comments after the fact.

You failed to meet the obligations of the challenge. As you continue to fail. I've stated this simple fact for you once already, and if you'd taken the time to read my challenge fully, and more slowly, then you'd realize WHY you had failed.

Shows how little you care that you'd go reaching for $$ not yours, not earned, and not even in agreement w/ the posted challenge.

Might be you learn a few things from this lesson, but I'm kinda doubting it.

p.s.

Quote:
Braggadocios isn't a word.

Main Entry: braggadocious
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: overly proud, bragging in excess
Etymology: derivative of the mock-Italian braggadocio meaning 'idle boaster'

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braggadocious

Italian isn't English, and desperately shouting "you're a troll" doesn't change that you act like a troll, and I don't. Again you try to change the original subject of the thread, unable to meet the threads original subject, and attempt to blame your actions on others. Ever the consummate far right authoritarian troll, incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions.

And as I said, you made a promise to give to charity to make yourself look good, and in order to attack me, and you had absolutely no intention of making good. The fact you confirm that that is the truth, but then try to claim that it proves me wrong in my statements, proves you're a delusional fool. You've never given to charity and you never will, you only use the idea of doing so to try to make yourself look good, but you never follow through. The fact that you make these wild promises, and ALWAYS have a way of wriggling out of them, proves everything about you, and ~I'm afraid nothing about me.

Continue to prove yourself a troll, the more you erroneously cast aspersions at others, the more you prove it true of yourself

Claiming corrupted Italian words are English merely proves how stupid and ignorant you are:
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=bragga
docious&branch=&textsearchtype=exact

I guess these lies and delusions are how evil child murderers such as yourself live with yourselves. Fortunately these delusions only work on you, which is why you are doomed to continue to live your sad evil and pathetic life, alone.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:11 PM

So, you're claim that a word isn't a word, even when it's listed in the dictionary?

I never made a promise, it was a challenge to you. YOU failed, as I'm sure you're use to doing.

Hell, the entire English language is a corruption, so why you'd try to claim otherwise, is only something a troll like you could answer.

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, you're claim that a word isn't a word, even when it's listed in the dictionary?

It's not in the Oxford English Dictionary. It's not an English word. Only a stupid ignorant troll could think otherwise. Man you're this desperate to avoid discussing the topic you'll try to claim Italian is English? They're not even similarly rooted languages. God you're such a stupid loony.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I never made a promise, it was a challenge to you. YOU failed, as I'm sure you're use to doing.

You're still proving me right. That you're too stupid to realise that is hardly anything new. You said you would do something in order to make yourself look good and me bad via the offer, but you placed restrictions on it that were impossible to fulfil. As I said, you claimed you'd give to charity to make yourself look good, but when it comes down to actually doing it, like all big mouthed far right cowardly authoritarians, you made sure you had a way to weasel out of it. That's what I said, and you keep agreeing with me, then saying I'm wrong because you can't own up to truths you find inconvenient.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hell, the entire English language is a corruption, so why you'd try to claim otherwise, is only something a troll like you could answer.

The English language is what it is. That some words have made it in from other languages doesn't prove any word is English. Only a stupid ignorant cowardly weasel of a troll like you could try to claim otherwise.

Again you prove you're a troll and that I'm not, but are so stupid you believe screaming the opposite to reality will fool someone.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:57 PM

And now I see you've resorted to changing the subject title - again.

cute, misspelling words so as to make it look like whozit did this.

What a complete and utter troll you are, citizen.

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And now I see you've resorted to changing the subject title - again.

cute, misspelling words so as to make it look like whozit did this.

What a complete and utter troll you are, citizen.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Just with the last thread, you probably did it yourself.

I proved you wrong with my last post, so now you are desperately trying to frame me again with your actions? Pathetic.

Again you attempt to call me a troll, but only prove it of yourself.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 12, 2009 2:10 PM

You've never proven me wrong, only proven yourself to be wrong.

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 12, 2009 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You've never proven me wrong, only proven yourself to be wrong.

I've already told you, desperately saying the opposite to reality fools no one but yourself. The fact that you are so consistently proven wrong would make most people re-evaluate the wisdom of getting all their opinions wholesale from a drug addicted radio host, you just shift deeper into your delusion.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:46 PM

Surely it's time for pistols at ten paces, gentlemen.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, April 12, 2009 9:33 PM

Pistols hell, cannons, double-shotted and loaded with cannister at fifteen.

This neverending ping pong match is gettin OLD, gentlemen.

-F

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You've never proven me wrong, only proven yourself to be wrong.

I've already told you, desperately saying the opposite to reality fools no one but yourself. The fact that you are so consistently proven wrong would make most people re-evaluate the wisdom of getting all their opinions wholesale from a drug addicted radio host, you just shift deeper into your delusion.

To prove one worng, you must offer evidence.

As always, you fail on that, and simply respond w/ petty insults, in parrot like fashion, simply saying the same thing, over and over and over again.

It's pathological, with out question, your obsessive reaction and childish response.

CITIZEN

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pistols hell, cannons, double-shotted and loaded with cannister at fifteen.

This neverending ping pong match is gettin OLD, gentlemen.

-F

Point taken. It was getting kinda boring having him repeat back whatever I said to him as if it was new a smart. Like arguing with a two year old.

RUE

Monday, April 13, 2009 9:18 AM

Personally, I give blood quite often, as I'm a rare blood type.

And while I don't give to religious charities, I give quite a bit to organizations that are trying to make this a better world.

I suspect that's how the figures get skewed. If the local church organization counts as a donation to charity, but Habitat to Humanity - or the Nature Conservancy, or Planned Parenthood - don't, then it doesn't mater HOW much liberals give. None of it will ever be counted.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Monday, April 13, 2009 9:27 AM

"A large majority of U.S. citizens donate money each year to houses of worship and charitable organizations."

Yep. That's how the figures get skewed. But then, it's not as if he's an unbiased source as claimed. Arthur C. Brooks visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. And it's not as if Rap is an unbiased poster. He would NEVER post that information.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/whos_more_c
haritable_liberals_or_conservatives

1. Is this because more conservatives go to church, and give money to their church? For example, Mormons (who tend to be conservative), give 10% of their income to one of the wealthiest churches on the face of the planet, and one which does considerably less humanitarian work around than many churches (liberal and conservative) with much less wealth. Most of us wouldn't count everything you give to your church as "giving to charity," so you should ask yourself if the studies Kristof talks about take church giving into account.

And in fact, Kristof notes that "According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."

But maybe that's because conservatives are already giving a big chunk of change to their church (which may really go to substantial charitable work, and not just to the general operating expenses of the church), so there is less money left over to give to non-religious charities. Thus excluding "donations to all religious organizations" may not be a fair comparison either.

2. Are conservatives richer, and thus able to give more to charity? Kristof notes that "measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes," but we're given no information on how giving relates to wealth. When I'm spending 80% of my income on basics like food, housing, and transportation, I have less money to give as a percentage of my income. If I only spend 30% on the basics, I'm free to give a larger chunk to charity.

3. How much is related to say, issues of urban vs. rural environments, instead of liberal/conservative? One claim is "People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often." Is that because there are more volunteer opportunities in smaller towns than in big cities? I grew up outside of the fairly small city of Ithaca, NY. I volunteered for the local fire department there, something I could never do now in St. Louis because the fire department is all professional.

There are obviously more questions to ask, and it's not clear at all, at least from the newspaper story, what we should really believe.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 13, 2009 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Point taken. It was getting kinda boring having him repeat back whatever I said to him as if it was new a smart. Like arguing with a two year old.

Which is funny, because that's exactly what you were doing, over and over and over again.

Well, not funny....just sad.

CITIZEN

Monday, April 13, 2009 11:45 AM

Anyway, ignoring the trolls to get back to the topic:

That's what I was getting at Rue. It does indicate that Conservative families tend to earn less, but that doesn't say what some might like to portray. People living in Rural areas often earn less than people in cities, but that's because the cost of living is higher in cities. Most of my wages currently go on paying my bills, but living in the North of England on the same money I'd have it easy.

GEEZER

Monday, April 13, 2009 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I suspect that's how the figures get skewed. If the local church organization counts as a donation to charity, but Habitat to Humanity - or the Nature Conservancy, or Planned Parenthood - don't, then it doesn't mater HOW much liberals give. None of it will ever be counted.

So explain please why a church might report donations and Habitat, et. al. wouldn't. Non-profits pretty much have to report their income to maintain their tax status and impress their donors with their efficiency.

Although on second thought, how would a charity's reports of donations received indicate whether a donor was liberal or conservative?

Since I'm going to the library later today, I'll try to find Mr. Brooks' book and discover his methodology. I'm thinking it'll likely be surveys and such.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Monday, April 13, 2009 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pistols hell, cannons, double-shotted and loaded with cannister at fifteen.

This neverending ping pong match is gettin OLD, gentlemen.

-F

But ping-pong is fun! It keeps us distracted from reality while still feeling involved.

Oh, and the preferred nomenclature is "table tennis".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, April 13, 2009 2:13 PM

This is a religious thing. Liberals tend to follow a belief based more on Epicureanism, or personal gratification – they tend to believe that government is the solution to these kinds of problems and like most people tend to see government as a separate entity instead of being composed of the population. Therefore these kinds of problems of society are often separated from them. This leads them to give less to charity because they don’t really feel like its their responsibility (it's the "rich" peoples responsibility and the government's responsibility to compel the rich).

Conservatives tend to follow a belief more of a spiritual gratification instead of personal then Liberals do. They do believe in personal freedom, but don’t accept that the government is always the necessarily solution to the degree that Liberals do. Therefore they tend to see charity as more their responsibility then Liberals do. So they give, both to satisfy their belief in spirituality which often compels them to give as well as their need to see themselves as more responsible for society.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 13, 2009 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pistols hell, cannons, double-shotted and loaded with cannister at fifteen.

This neverending ping pong match is gettin OLD, gentlemen.

-F

But ping-pong is fun! It keeps us distracted from reality while still feeling involved.

Oh, and the preferred nomenclature is "table tennis".

SergeantX

RIPWASH

Monday, April 13, 2009 3:14 PM

I was about to say . . . it was getting to the ping-pong cats point again.

I actually get reminded of Monty Python's Argument Clinic . . .

No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!
I'm telling you it is!
...
No, it isn't.

Look, this isn't an argument.
...
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

WASHNWEAR

Monday, April 13, 2009 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I was about to say . . . it was getting to the ping-pong cats point again.

I actually get reminded of Monty Python's Argument Clinic . . .

No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!
I'm telling you it is!
...
No, it isn't.

Look, this isn't an argument.
...
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!

Yeah, and you know where it progresses to from there, doncha? POIN-TED STICKS.

W W J C D ?
What would John Cleese do?

CITIZEN

Monday, April 13, 2009 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I was about to say . . . it was getting to the ping-pong cats point again.

I actually get reminded of Monty Python's Argument Clinic . . .

No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!
I'm telling you it is!
...
No, it isn't.

Look, this isn't an argument.
...
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

No it isn't.

THATWEIRDGIRL

Monday, April 13, 2009 4:19 PM

Yes, it is.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

THATWEIRDGIRL

Monday, April 13, 2009 4:27 PM

Anywho.

Most people reveal their donations on their tax forms. They could have used tax forms that were voluntarily shared with the study? All I can tell you is what I've seen first hand. I see more religious people at the food bank donating time and goods. I see more religious people donating household supplies and clothes to shelters. I see more religious people at HFH builds. That is most likely because I grew up in a religious area, but I don't see that same correlation where I am now. Charity is very scarce here (currently a blue state).

The blood thing sounds weird. In my mind that should be more even.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

KWICKO

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:33 PM

And then you have people like me - liberal, atheist, not rich but not dirt poor. I moved recently, and took FOUR TRUCKLOADS of stuff to Goodwill. Didn't get a receipt, nor did I ask for one. I give blood, I give plasma - actually, I SELL plasma because they pay you for it, but then I give the money to the local animal shelter or an adoption/rescue service. I donate money to charities, I leave food and drinks over at the "hobo camp" in the forest across the field from my work. I donate damaged/unsold/mislabeled products from my business to charity.

And I never, EVER claim it on my taxes or try to use it to enhance my earnings in any way. I don't admit it to anyone - the only reason I even post it here is because this is anonymous, and it's not like anyone here really knows me.

I never did it because I was interested in money, or in "god" being nicer to me, or because I wanted the gratitude from the people helped, or the fame from the people covering it. I did it because I had something, and others had nothing. It put me out not at all to help them, so I did.

And I guarantee you I'm not alone.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

GEEZER

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Since I'm going to the library later today, I'll try to find Mr. Brooks' book and discover his methodology. I'm thinking it'll likely be surveys and such.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Back with the book. The Appendix lists the sources from which Mr. Brooks obtained much of his data.

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/

The Social Capital Community Benchmark Study.
http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/

The General Social Survey.
http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/

The International Social Survey Program.
http://www.issp.org/

The Arts and Religion Survey.
http://www.cpanda.org/getDDIsummary.xq?studyID=a00082

The Giving USA Survey.
http://www.givingusa.org/

The Maxwell Poll.
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/programs/maxwellpoll.htm

The American National Election Study.
http://www.electionstudies.org/

The Giving and Volunteering in the United States Survey.
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/gv01main.html

The America Gives Survey.
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/Giving/AmericaGivesReport.p
df

Now I just have to read the book.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, April 13, 2009 6:10 PM

Ain't the money so much as where it goes and how effectively it's used.

Liberals also tend to personally donate time and effort when they can rather than money - and sure, often in causes or projects which are either a bit ridiculous or even counterproductive, but everyone believes in something, right ?

My charity tends to be the personal kind, if I decide to help out, then I help out, in whatever fashion I find most effective, and usually that ain't tax deductible...

Hell, sometimes it's even profitable - paying disposal and recycling costs for out of warranty office and computer equipment is annoying enough that when some nameless goon in a truck offers to "make it go away" for a cut-rate or even free, nobody asks questions, and when that soon-reconditioned equipment winds up in the hands of RAWA, third party political fronts, or other folks who needed it - nobody asks questions on that end neither.

I myself prefer REAL help as opposed to some tax shelter where 96% of the budget goes into administrative costs and the salaries of the berks running it, and a PR campaign, with only a smidgen here and there to keep up the facade.

Scored a largish box of digital cameras this past week we're testing and packing up for RAWA to ship on Wed, matter of fact.
And most of em even seen to have memory cards in em, tho small and outdated ones, but it's something.
http://www.rawa.org/help.htm

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, April 13, 2009 6:12 PM

Quote:
I did it because I had something, and others had nothing. It put me out not at all to help them, so I did.

And I guarantee you I'm not alone.

Far and away from it, Mikey.

You'd make a damn good Anarchist, cause your outlook on life is damn similar to Kropotkinism.

-F

THATWEIRDGIRL

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I myself prefer REAL help as opposed to some tax shelter where 96% of the budget goes into administrative costs and the salaries of the berks running it, and a PR campaign, with only a smidgen here and there to keep up the facade.

I prefer time/manpower donations. If I'm giving money, I always look up the org's records. See how they will use your money.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

GEEZER

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ain't the money so much as where it goes and how effectively it's used.

Liberals also tend to personally donate time and effort when they can rather than money - and sure, often in causes or projects which are either a bit ridiculous or even counterproductive, but everyone believes in something, right ?

Per what I've read of Mr. Brooks' book in the little time I've had, Conservatives contribute more money AND time than Liberals. Secular Liberals appear to be at the bottom of both time and money giving, with Secular Conservatives better on both, Religious Liberals better still, and Religious Conservatives best.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:51 PM

What I’ve seen is that the churches, most of which are very conservative, tend to donate as much time/manpower as money. I'm always finding help from Church groups, but almost none of the liberals I know donate their time. This is another reason why Churches need to be encouraged, because they organize people for charity work, if nothing else.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 3:47 PM

Here's data from one of the tables from the book. It's taken from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey.

Since I'm having to type this in, it may be a bit messy and the format is different.

Religious Conservatives

Population % - 19.1
% donating to charity - 91
Average Amount - $2,367
% giving to religious causes - 88
% giving to non-religious causes - 71
% volunteering - 67
# times volunteering - 11.9
% vol. for religious causes - 62
% for non-religious causes - 60

Secular Liberals

Population % - 10.5
% donating to charity - 72
Average Amount - $741
% giving to religious causes - 22
% giving to non-religious causes - 69
% volunteering - 52
# times volunteering - 7.2
% vol. for religious causes - 51
% for non-religious causes - 47

Religious Liberals

Population % - 6.4
% donating to charity - 91
Average Amount - $2,123
% giving to religious causes - 86
% giving to non-religious causes - 72
% volunteering - 67
# times volunteering - 12.6
% vol. for religious causes - 60
% for non-religious causes - 63

Secular Conservatives

Population % - 7.3
% donating to charity - 63
Average Amount - $661
% giving to religious causes - 34
% giving to non-religious causes - 55
% volunteering - 37
# times volunteering - 4.7
% vol. for religious causes - 35
% for non-religious causes - 31

Based on this, it seems religious folk, both Conservative and Liberal, donate more time and money to charity than Secular folk of either stripe. Of course, there are three times as many Religious Conservatives as Religious Liberals, so the conservative contribution is greater overall.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:24 PM

Religious Conservatives
% giving to non-religious causes - 71
Secular Conservatives
% giving to non-religious causes - 55

Secular Liberals
% giving to non-religious causes - 69
Religious Liberals
% giving to non-religious causes - 72

When you take out religious donations, liberals by subgroup give as much, or far more, than conservatives. Or if you average the subgroups 71% liberals to 63% conservatives.

It is confirms my impression that liberals are more cause oriented and more 'liberal' with their money when it comes to their causes - or as I put it - making the world a better place.

I would also dispute that donating to churches counts as donating to charity. Just because something is tax exempt like churches, or non-profit like Kaiser Permanente, doesn't make it a charity. I know too many churches that fund the preacher's lifestyle and lavish church buildings with the donations. Very little goes to charity, if any at all. Church donations are not necessarily charity donations.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:55 PM

This argument is largely superficial. The issue only comes up in response to charges that those who are opposed to state mandated charity are stingy, or that the needy will be without recourse if charity isn't dictated by law. Regardless of the numbers being tossed around here, that clearly isn't the case. The real question, as usual, is control. Do we really need top down government institutions to take care of society's needs? In some cases, yes. But I'd say that most of the time we don't. And when we don't such programs do more to get in the way of civil cooperation and community than they do to promote it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:01 PM

Oh see - thought the issue was that this was just more of Rap's phonied-up liberal bashing. The guy's scraped the bottom of the barrel so hard, he's got splinters under his fingernails.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:03 PM

Well, the article was by George Will, not Rap.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

THATWEIRDGIRL

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:09 PM

This!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Church donations are not necessarily charity donations.

Very true.

Some day when I'm more sane and stable I want to start and run a non-profit. I have it all planned in my head.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
Some day when I'm more sane and stable I want to start and run a non-profit. I have it all planned in my head.

I'm pretty good at the "non-profit" part. Let me know if you need a hand.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:19 PM

"Well, the article was by George Will, not Rap."

Posted by Rap, written by Will, about a 'study' done by Arthur C. Brooks, to be accurate.

And so ? Rap posted it here and argued for it.

Do you have a point ?

And, btw, absent CHURCH donations, liberals give FAR more. Apparently they don't have such an all-fired faith in government to solve problems that they're willing to coast along on that assumption. So, yeah, your post is wrong, too.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:23 PM

Hello,

I don't think you should absent church donations.

People donate to Church because they feel that the Church will perform good works in the spirit of the God or Gods they believe in.

People donate to other charities because they feel that the other charities will perform good works in the spirit of the moral or moral imperatives they believe in.

Same pizza, different slice.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26 PM

It's tempting to discount the church donations. In a certain sense they're not much different from liberals who think they're charitable because the vote for programs that force others to give. But still, at the core, they're voluntary donations, where taxes aren't.

In any case, I still think it's petty to quibble about whether liberals or conservatives are more charitable, or nicer, or more fun at parties. The question is whether charity is the proper role of government.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:36 PM

"promote the general welfare ..."

I'd say yes, since religious, community and private charity didn't seem to be getting the job done, and widespread poverty lead to social unrest.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:57 PM

And I'd say, in most cases, no.

Government is a proper solution for problems that require consensus decisions. It's an improper solution for problems that don't. Forcing a once-size-fits-all, majority-rules solution on problems that don't need such a draconian approach limits our options and puts all our eggs in one basket.

Turning what would otherwise be voluntary charity into a tax obligation diminishes personal responsibility and encourages dependency. And by that I'm referring to the responsibility and dependency of the givers, not the receivers of charity. People who assume the government will take care of everything are delegating their personal responsibility to their community and forming dependency on state institutions to care for their neighbors and relatives. I think a community is healthier when we assume those responsibilities personally rather than institutionally.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:06 PM

Remember Jane Eyre ? Oliver Twist ?

Though those are fiction, they were nonetheless accurate. Or if you want - prisoner ships to Australia and indentured servants to America. That's what happens when you depend on volunteerism and private charity.

Your 'solution' doesn't work. To enforce YOUR one-size fits all 'solution' is to insist on massive poverty in a economic system that is concerned only about maximizing profit.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:18 PM

Voluntary solutions will represent the will of the people in the most accurate, egalitarian way possible. People will give exactly as much as they think they should. Sometimes that will result in levels of giving that you don't like, and I think that's the crux of the problem. It's about control.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:35 PM

Hello,

I would tend to agree. Fearing widespread poverty and social discord in the absence of government assisted charity is to fear that people are selfish bastards.

Which may often be true.

But does that make it right to bribe people into selfless behavior?

I'm not sure that government should be involved in morality.

On the other hand, I worry about a world where we don't reward positive morals. What would it look like?

Call me on the fence, leaning towards the prime directive.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:03 PM

Quote:
It's tempting to discount the church donations

Especially since I used to donate to a church and I KNOW where those donations went to! There's a reason why I don't donate to ANY religous group, and that's bc the church donations either wind up building pretty churches in rich neighborhoods (The Crystal Cathedral), maintaining preachers in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed,

Quote:
Joel Osteen has not yet had major sex scandals, drug scandals or molestation scandals like the other megachurch pastors: Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton, Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, D.E. (Earl) Paulk, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, William Dodd and too many others to possibly mention here.... In his sermons, Joel Osteen does not talk about God. Joel Osteen instead talks about almost everything except God. He has a television ministry, a massive church, $43 million a year in tithes and another $36 million a year in mailed in donations, but he won’t talk about God. He, like Pastor Kevin Gerald, talks about more pleasant topics, such as donating money to him and positive thinking.

promoting their particular lunacy (Scientology Salvation Army- the biggest slumlord in LA), OR WORSE:

Quote:
Even More Evangelist Preachers Arrested on Sex Charges; Tony Alamo Trial Set for May; Ted Haggard Looking “Haggard”, Promoting HBO Documentary.
*Joe Barron of the huge Prestonwood Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, who was arrested for soliciting sex with minors over the internet.
*Ted Haggard, the head preacher of New Life Ministries in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and friend of James Dobson, leader of the ultra-right, super anti-gay, Focus on the Family.
* James Howard Bell, KY, pastor of the Refuge Temple Church of God in Christ, was arrested for abuse of a child under 16 and determined to be HIV+.
* Lawrence Webber, NC, a preacher and member of the Reeder Memorial Baptist Church, was charged with felony sex crimes against children under 13.
* Gilyard, FL, pastor of the Shiloh Metropolitan Baptist Church, was arrested for sending lewd messages to underage girls, after 20 years of accusations of indecent conduct. Gilyard was purported to be one of the up and coming leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention.
*Leroy Ruedes Cruz, TX, pastor of Grace Fellowship, a pentecostal-type, strip mall church, was arrested for solicitation of a minor over the internet.
* Shellman, George–Harold Lasseter, Jr., pastor of the Shellman United Methodist Church, was arrested at his church on child pornography charges.

www.tonyalamonews.com/870/11909-even-more-evangelist-preachers-arreste
d-on-sex-charges-tony-alamo-trial-set-for-may-ted-haggard-looking-%E2%80%9Chaggard%E2%80%9D-promoting-hbo-documentary.php

Quote:
TX - Here in the gentle hills of north Texas, televangelist Kenneth Copeland has built a religious empire teaching that God wants his followers to prosper. Over the years, a circle of Copeland’s relatives and friends have done just that, The Associated Press has found. They include the brother-in-law with a lucrative deal to broker Copeland’s television time, the son who acquired church-owned land for his ranching business and saw it more than quadruple in value, and board members who together have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking at church events. Church officials say no one improperly benefits through ties to Copeland’s vast evangelical ministry, which claims more than 600,000 subscribers in 134 countries to its flagship “Believer’s Voice of Victory” magazine.... “There are far too many relatives here,” said Frances Hill, a University of Miami law professor who specializes in nonprofit tax law. “There’s too much money sloshing around and too much of it sloshing around with people with overlapping affiliations and allegiances by either blood or friendship or just ties over the years. There are red flags all over these relationships.”

http://imablogger.net/2008/07/28/megachurch-televangelist-families-are
-prospering-too-coincidence/

Just google "megach

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:10 PM

Quote:
I'm not sure that government should be involved in morality.

Then why create laws against killing, or stealing, or polluting? Why limit a company's responsibility as fiduciary to its stockholders? Why create copyrights?

For better or worse, government is an expression of what kinds of behavior people collectively agree to allow and disallow, reward or punish, and those decisions are intrinsically based on what we think is "right" or "wrong"

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I'm not sure that government should be involved in morality.
Then why create laws against killing, or stealing, or polluting?

Because those are actions that, while also immoral, violate people's rights. I think that Anthony was referring to the concept of "legislating morality". We don't expect the government to force people into virtuous behavior - just to protect us from those who would victimize others.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I don't think you should absent church donations.

People donate to Church because they feel that the Church will perform good works in the spirit of the God or Gods they believe in.

People donate to other charities because they feel that the other charities will perform good works in the spirit of the moral or moral imperatives they believe in.

Same pizza, different slice.

--Anthony

I would disagree. People donate to their church, partly because it's expected (when the collection plate comes around) and partly to keep it, their social life and their community going. Is that all that different from me giving money to my martial arts class, that uses that money to keep the class going, keep the centre in repair, and also to build centres in places like Thailand that then give work and homes to people who otherwise wouldn't have it? Do I get to declare my martial arts fees as a charitable donation too? Or is it only if my social activity that also gives to charity happens to be religiously motivated that I get to do so?

Quote:
But does that make it right to bribe people into selfless behavior?

You mean like "be good and you go to heaven"?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:21 PM

Quote:
Because those are actions that, while also immoral, violate people's rights.

The construct of "peoples rights" is an intrinsic expression of what we think of as "right" and "wrong". In fact, the word "right" is the basis of the words "rights".

There are no immutable "human rights". It's whatever our society (often steered by a common religion) deems to be fair and just. What we think of as normal and intrinsic or desireable (equal rights for women, individualism, property rights, secularism, or what-have-you) other societies and governments would view as abnormal, perverse, unfair, unjust.

The choices we make AFA morality, distribution of resources, rights and so forth are just that: CHOICES.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
People donate to their church, partly because it's expected (when the collection plate comes around) and partly to keep it, their social life and their community going.

Isn't that a major impetus for charitable giving in general?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:24 PM

"Fearing widespread poverty and social discord in the absence of government assisted charity is to fear that people are selfish bastards."

I think one can show that RICH people are selfish bastards who don't give enought to change the situation ! It's prima facie evident.

But more than that - any society is all about 'morals' and distribution of resources. We live in a system that does that already. And it's no more 'free' than anywhere else in the world.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:26 PM

Quote:
Isn't that a major impetus for charitable giving in general?

No. Usually when people give to charity the money doesn't wind up back in their community. It often goes to a distant location, or a group of people which have no effect on the donor.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Because those are actions that, while also immoral, violate people's rights.
The construct of "peoples rights" is an intrinsic expression of what we think of as "right" and "wrong". In fact, the word "right" is the basis of the words "rights".

Yeah... semantic arguments tend to go nowhere, especially here. I'm talking about a distinction between laws which protect freedoms and those that coerce desired behaviors. That's the distinction (I think) that Anthony was making.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Isn't that a major impetus for charitable giving in general?

Only if you want to include going down the pub as a charitable donation.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Isn't that a major impetus for charitable giving in general?
No. Usually when people give to charity the money doesn't wind up back in their community. It often goes to a distant location, or a group of people which have no effect on the donor.

Oh, well I disagree wholeheartedly, and would have no interest in donating to a charity that wasn't helping my community. That said, I define my community at various breadths, from my family, to my neighborhood, to my nation, to my world.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Isn't that a major impetus for charitable giving in general?

Only if you want to include going down the pub as a charitable donation.

Not sure what you mean.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:33 PM

Quote:
Yeah... semantic arguments tend to go nowhere, especially here.

Not sematic- theoretical. You haven't seen my point apparently

Quote:
I'm talking about a distinction between laws which protect freedoms and those that coerce desired behaviors. That's the distinction (I think) that Anthony was making.

One person's freedom is another's oppression. For example, there is a famous quote: "Property is theft". (Please google it in quotes to find the entire history. ) Creating such a thing a property rights (There's that troublesome word again- "rights") means that goods and resources which may have been commonly available now have become unavailable to the many. Be very wary of the word "rights". It implies an intrinsic, natural, inevitable framework of right and wrong which simply doesn't exist.

BTW- I see no distinction between "protecting rights" and "coercing desired behaviors". Perhaps the distinction that you INTEND to make is one in which a person is "prohibited from" doing something as opposed to "coerced into doing" something. I STILL don't see a distinction, as for example you can prohibit a slave from running away. It's possible to state any enforced action as a prohibition.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
One person's freedom is another's oppression. For example, there is a famous quote: "Property is theft". (Please google it in quotes to find the entire history. )

Interesting. I'm wondering if that was an influence on Orwell...

Quote:
Be very wary of the word "rights". It implies an intrinsic, natural, inevitable framework which simply doesn't exist.

Ok. The meaning seems pretty clear to me, but given that it seems to be mean something else to you, I'll try to avoid it in our discussions.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:44 PM

Quote:
That said, I define my community at various breadths, from my family, to my neighborhood, to my nation, to my world.

While the Western religions (Judaism, Christianity amd Islam) tend to define THEIR communities narrowly, as either "their church" (specifically the location of worship), their spiritiual leader (perhaps a televangelist or immam) or "their religion".

Quote:
Interesting. I'm wondering if that was an influence on Orwell...

I think more like dialetical thought or yin-yang. You can't have dark without light. You can't give someone rights to something without taking it away from someone else. There used to be "the commmons"- a place that nobody owned where a village would pasture their horses. That kind of resource wuld not exist in a system which required that everything be defined by property rights.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Not sure what you mean.

Pub Culture over here has placed the local pub at the heart of the community and social life of that community at least as much as the local church traditionally. Which is part of the reason the temperance movement went after pubs so vehemently in the 1800's, and also why they failed so completely. Now Pubs in smaller more traditional communities, like the one I grew up in, are probably more dependent on the pub, which I worked in for a time, for the centre of the community and social life. So if all it takes for being a charitable donation is to "support your social life and community", then by that standard going into a pub and getting blitzed is an extremely charitable act, at least here.

Works for me, makes me one of the most charitable people on this Earth and I didn't even know it.

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:47 PM

Who keeps changing the thread title ? Every time I look, it's different.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Who keeps changing the thread title ? Every time I look, it's different.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Heh.. I'll go out on a limb and say, "A liberal?"

Actually, it's hard to say. Once someone starts monkeying with it, it cascades - because if you edit a previous post, the title reverts to whatever the title was the time of the original post, unless you edit it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:03 PM

I didn't know that ... So, if I post and the title is QWERTY, and go back and edit the post and update - the title goes back to QWERTY ?

OH ! dear.

AHEM !

NEVER mind !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:11 PM

Just to be clear, the only reason I know ANYTHING about such subtleties is because ChrisIsAll told me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The question is whether charity is the proper role of government.

Interesting stats on this in the book.

In 1996, people were asked to respond to this statement "The government has a responsibilityto reduce income inequity". They were also asked about their charitable giving. Here's some results based on their response to the statement and their average giving in dollars.

Agree Strongly

All gifts - 140
Secular gifts only - 66
Religious giving - 133

Agree

All gifts - 320
Secular gifts only - 139
Religious giving - 129

Neither

All gifts - 398
Secular gifts only - 132
Religious giving - 317

Disagree

All gifts - 978
Secular gifts only - 389
Religious giving - 598

Disagree Strongly

All gifts - 1637
Secular gifts only - 591
Religious giving - 903

Data from the General Social Survey cited earlier.

So it appears that the people who want to give away other people's money are less likely to give away their own. Now, per the text, the folk who want to reduce income inequality do earn slightly less than the folks who don't (13%). This doesn't seem to cover the over 1000% difference in the extremes.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So it appears that the people who want to give away other people's money are less likely to give away their own.

Or that people who don't want the government to tax them, say they give more money to charity...

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Posted by Rap, written by Will, about a 'study' done by Arthur C. Brooks, to be accurate.

So. Have you, or are you going to, read Mr. Brooks' book (as I am currently doing), or are you just going to make assumptions based on your prejudices? Surely you could find a copy in your local library, as I did.

I doubt you'll go to the trouble.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:28 AM

It must be nice to be retired. As for myself, I have to work.

If I have time to get around to it, I might. Or, maybe not. It depends on what else is happening at the time.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Voluntary solutions will represent the will of the people in the most accurate, egalitarian way possible. People will give exactly as much as they think they should. Sometimes that will result in levels of giving that you don't like, and I think that's the crux of the problem. It's about control.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Well, yes and no. Do you remember Live Aid? It raised MILLIONS to help the starving in Ethiopia. It was strictly voluntary, but it opened the eyes of the world to the problem, and actually kicked governments and the UN in the ass and got them DOING SOMETHING instead of pretending the problem didn't exist.

So voluntary efforts are great, IF you can get the word out in the first place that there is a NEED for voluntary giving to help with a particular problem.

So in a very real way, voluntary solutions will represent the AWARENESS of the people in the most accurate, egalitarian way possible.

Just something to ponder...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If I have time to get around to it, I might. Or, maybe not. It depends on what else is happening at the time.

Then maybe you shouldn't criticize if you don't have the time to be informed?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So in a very real way, voluntary solutions will represent the AWARENESS of the people in the most accurate, egalitarian way possible.

Just something to ponder...

I see what you mean. But notice I'm not saying the voluntary approach is the best way to solve a given problem. Just that it will better express the willingness of a population to help. If that willingness is wanting, so be it.

I guess it depends on how you look at democracy. Some would contend that majority rule somehow represents the will of the people. But all it really represents is the will of the majority (and even then, only the majority of voters). Voluntary solutions represent the will of everyone, and in relative measure. When we can afford that approach, I think it's more respectful of personal sovereignty and dignity. Sometimes we can't - war, disaster, plague - and arguably (settle down, Frem) authoritarian measures are called for. But in general we abuse the hell out of democracy to solve problems. It shouldn't be a tool to get one over on the other guy, even if the other guy is "greedy capitalist".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SHINYGOODGUY

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:09 AM

The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

"There's a lady who's sure, all that glitters is gold and she's buying a Stairway to Heaven"

- Led Zeppilin

SGG

Tawabawho?

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:08 AM

You know, taxing someone into poverty, and then taxing them some more to fund programs supposed to raise them out of it doesn't exactly sound like a logically sound idea to me.

Maybe if we didn't pauperize folks with the taxes in the first damn place....

Just a thought.

As for "Authoritarian" leadership in a crisis, our little collective operates more by swarm theory meritocracy than anything else, but one thing we've learned from operating that way...

When the shit REALLY hits the fan, everyone who doesn't have a clue starts lookin at the person they think most likely to have one, and if enough of em are lookin at the *same* person, that person winds up in charge whether they want the job or not, cause *someone* has to make a decision, and even a bad decision is worse than NO decision during a crisis, cause it gets folk moving and motivated, which can be adjusted on the fly to a better plan.

Usually that someone winds up being me, by virtue of experience, reputation and useful contacts, but not necessarily always, especially in a case where use of force might be counterproductive, since they know damn well concerning certain groups I'm likely to try some even when it ain't exactly warranted.

I take orders as good as I give em though, and when someone else has a better handle on the situation, unless they blow it in a major way, it's all their show.

This is where many orgs, the military in particular, totally screw up, dismissing out of hand someone who just MIGHT have a better grip on the situation merely due to their lack of rank or seniority - if you ever wanna know the worst possible WRONG way to do something, ask the Army how they'd do it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If I have time to get around to it, I might. Or, maybe not. It depends on what else is happening at the time.

Then maybe you shouldn't criticize if you don't have the time to be informed?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Maybe she had to; maybe her hands were tied, and it was politically expedient...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Maybe she had to; maybe her hands were tied, and it was politically expedient...

Mike

Trying on the Troll hat, are we?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:43 PM

All you assholes - especially Geezer - I didn't criticize the study. I know, this is your way of painting me as something I am not.

Go back a READ my posts - if you actually know how to read - OK ?

And

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:48 PM

Quote:
You know, taxing someone into poverty, and then taxing them some more to fund programs supposed to raise them out of it doesn't exactly sound like a logically sound idea to me.

Me neither, so it's a good thing that people AREN'T taxed into poverty! (And anyone who says they are is wrong!)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:22 PM

Quote:
Me neither, so it's a good thing that people AREN'T taxed into poverty! (And anyone who says they are is wrong!)

Excuse me miss!

Remind me, if you will, who fairly recently got run out of a career they actually freakin enjoyed because of an inability to make a living for the fucking taxes, including fuel prices, a good percentage of which is tax as well ?

Remind me, if you will, who said these things ?

Quote:
As a coda, there's no way in hell imma take pure malicious sophistry nicely from a shitheel that tried to shovel the concept that the rich pay so much tax and the poor almost none, on a day I was fucking starving cause I couldn't afford food in spite of working a fifty hour week due to the fact that an independant contractor in this job that both local (Engler) and national politicians have virtually destroyed which carries a tax bite of almost forty fucking percent of the total income BEFORE expenses...

In reference to the phrase; "do the poor pay taxes? No, they don't."

Quote:

Thirty four PERCENT, damn you.

And motor fuel tax, property taxes, utility taxes, sales taxes, every fuckin penny, coming or going the bastards take a bite, and without fail just after april they demand MORE cause I ain't gotten shit back for near a decade, just a bill, and folks makin far more than me whine about how us poor pay no taxes, while I eat jiffy biscuits for dinner cause that's all I can afford on what I got left after the Gov gets done bending me over the sawhorse...

And hearing some shitheel who no doubt makes more than I do, and who no doubt actually had something better to eat recently tell me the poor don't pay taxes makes me wanna ram their keyboard up their stupid, ignorant, uninformed ass crossways, cause I am right sick of hearing it, BEING one of those poor who supposedly "doesn't pay taxes" and here I am gettin royally raped on the fucking things.

Don't shovel that shit to me, especially not in the middle of a decade long relationship crumbling cause I don't make enough money no matter how I bust ass cause the more I make, the more they take, and not when I have to leave my chosen line of work for one I dislike cause it makes more money, and busting ass at both currently which means taking an even BIGGER tax hit since that eliminates the single job deduction till I get the transition covered.

Frankly, every time I hear that line of shit I wanna rip someones spine out, not even when I was fourteen and officially a dependant did I "get it all back" and that was well over twenty YEARS ago, it's always been a lie, a bald fiction to gloss over the fact that the working poor take such a tax bite that it's actually in many cases more sensible to go to the very government that pauperised them and beg for a handout.

Maybe if we didn't friggin impoverish them via taxes in the first damned place, they wouldn't NEED that goddamn handout, a lot of em wouldn't anyways, and we'd save a buck on all the folks chugging at the Govt trough, all the salarys of those who count, collect and enforce it coming it, and count, account for, and dole it out in the opposite direction, all of whom take their own little nibble as it passes till there's hardly nothin left.

It's not charity to rob someone, chew the take down to the bone, and then throw it back to them, it's just sheer meanness, and wasteful meanness at that.

And us working stiffs don't even get the damned bone back, how nice is that ?

And then we gotta listen to this bullshit lie over and over, while we count pennies and suck on ramen, and the Gov plans to squeeze us even harder to bail out their rich fatcat friends who've squeezed us dry till we got nothin left already.

Tell me, would you prefer to be pan fried, or boiled in a nice cream sauce ?

Eat the rich, yeah eat the rich
Out of the palace and into the ditch!
Krokus

Tell me that, eh ?

Especially now, being a small biz owner/operator, that the bite is even WORSE, AND we happen to be in a bitter financial dispute with the very same

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
We DO tax folk right into the poorhouse, and small biz owner/operators take the worst of it, so please, for the love of mercy do a little homework on how often taxes are the factor that sinks smallbiz, often before they even really get off the ground!

This falls in with a whole class of legislation that actually protects vested companies and corporations from unwanted competition. It's a pattern that happens over and over, in licensing and insurance requirements, tax legislation, and the reams of regulatory overhead that the fatcats can easily absorb, but represents an overwhelming barrier to start ups. That's why you often see the larger companies get behind new regulation (even while they give token resistance). In the end it's a win for them, as long as it hits their competition harder.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:04 PM

Said to me by Augustus, earlier today.

"Son, you might go hungry here and there, but you ain't ever gonna starve for too long, cause as long as there's three people left on this shitty planet, end of the day, someone is gonna want someone elses ass kicked."

I found that all too goddamn funny.

-F

THATWEIRDGIRL

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:09 PM

I just learned that lesson. I was absolutely dreading my taxes this year after I found out that as a self employed person I was pretty much looking at double the taxes. It's partly my fault for not doing the proper research before I started this venture, but gosh darnit, double?!

My saving grace this year is that I had a lot of start up cost expense. Next year I won't have nearly as many deductions or expenses. I'm scared.

Here I am paying double taxes while congress is working on giving those with estates over 20bil a tax break. Shouldn't they be the ones paying back the money? Are my paltry funds really a better recoup option than someone with 20 bill?

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE