Compassionate liberals??

1. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Some (not all) liberals are always bashing conservatives for not caring about their fellow man, but guess who donates more money, more time, and more blood to charities and causes? Conservatives! Even though conservatives make less, on average, than liberals, they still donate more money.
   
   Check out this link to the NY Times:
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini … rTbzSEr1IQ
   
   You can also find info about it from ABC News.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Old news, always interesting. You've got a live one here. I suspect this will draw folks out in droves. Enjoy the show! Popcorn?

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I know it's old news, but this was in the NY Times - not FOX! lol

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Understood, not trying to be dismissive. I think it's a great post. What do you believe is behind this trend?

            replyreport
         2. 80

            earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Just goes to show that nothing is as black or white on either side of politics as some would like to think, myself included.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I totally agree, Ernesto!

               replyreport
   2. 0

      sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That is kinda funny because 'gays' give more than both.  Conservatives give more to building churches -at least that is what the article says, and liberals make more donations to arts, education etc.
      
      The ones who donate the least are Secular Conservatives ie: conservative politicians.  And the ones who donate the most are the ones that have the least which is neither conservative or liberal or middle income or rich. 
      
      Yet it doesn't say that Conservatives make less than liberals only that conservatives give more percent than liberal.  Then you can take into account how wide spread liberal donations go, meaning they are spread out while Conservatives mostly go 1 place.
      
      Not to mention that that number probably comes out of church nor does it take into account what can be written off at the end of the year in which case they hadn't actually made much of any really charitable donations since they get it back and who ultimately made those donations?... yes the government.  
      
      Didn't mean this to be an 'attack' on conservatives but I did find it cheap to state that Conservatives donate more than liberals when really, based on income the poor and homosexual give more than both.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Can you be a conservative, poor, and gay at the same time?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes you can but it doesn't play well with identity politics and voting blocks. Technically you would be unrepresented.....

            replyreport
         2. 0

            sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Oy!

            replyreport
   3. 81

      TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      habee--I couldn't get the link to work, but I'll try again later...
      
      You mentioned that although conservatives, on the whole, make less than liberals, they tend to donate more money.
      
      I've noticed, throughout my lifetime, that the ones who have the least always tend to donate the most(when they can)--probably because they know what it's like to struggle to get by, and how appreciated the gesture will be.
      
      Five dollars to one may buy a cup of coffee...five dollars to another may buy enough food to feed their family for a night...I think that's the major difference between folks of different income levels.
      
      The cup of coffee people don't understand how giving up one cup a day could actually feed a family.  On the other hand, the ones who can feed a family on the five bucks understand that all too well...
      
      habee--I just also wanted to mention that I like the threads you start--you always try to be fair, and never judgemental. Thanks! 

      replyreport
2. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Popcorn is a no-no on my low carb diet...got any nuts?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I am on the low carb thing as well - lost 24 lbs so far.
      
      But all that article really proves is that self-professed conservatives are more likely to lie about how much money they donate to charity.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The low carb thing works. It may take a few weeks to get started, but once it does its fast!
         
         Well thats just speculation....from someone who leans on logic....

         replyreport
      2. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That's great, Mark! I'm having to low carb because of weird blood sugar levels - up and down.
         
         As for conservatives being dishonest, I'm not sure which group would win that award! lol

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Sufidreamerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's because you have been spending too much time daydreaming about being trapped in a jailcell with Hugh Jackman and Denzel Washington - that must wreak havoc on your blood sugar levels

            replyreport
            1. 92

               habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Good one, Sufi!!

               replyreport
   2. 62

      Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      if you want nuts just revisit the Republican Hierarchy! There's plenty of them in there.

      replyreport
3. 68

   ledefensetechposted 13 years ago

   Just goes to show that even the New York Times has to, sooner or later, stop printing propaganda and start printing news.  Thank God that bailout for newspapers never really went anywhere.  Imagine a world where a propaganda outlet....um newspaper can just go to Big Brother for funds whenever the ignorant proles stop buying papers because in their ignorance they want news and not propaganda.

   replyreport
4. 91

   Pcunixposted 13 years ago

   And WHY do conservatives donate more?
   
   Often to push religious agendas - sending missionaries to feed hungry children and introduce them to Jesus.
   
   People give to support the things they want to support.  Conservatives tend to just love religion, so that is where a lot of the money goes.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Obviously, P, you didn't bother to read the article. Even when churches and other religious causes are excluded, conservatives STILL give a larger percentage of their income to secular causes. They also donate more blood and volunteer more often. Nice try, though!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Oh yes and feeding hungry children is horrible! I guess that's why the democrats cut the food stamp program to pay for teachers. Why feed the poor when it's much more important to indoctrinate them! heehee

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Now now lady, the teachers union paid millions to get Obama elected.  It's just too bad that food stamps needed to be cut, but teachers are hurting!  Never mind they're graduating kids who can barely read and write.

         replyreport
      2. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Democrats cut the food stamp program?? That's a government program I really support.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            What would be better, in your opinion, increasing the food stamp program or stop paying farmers to not grow crops.  Which do you think will have a greater impact on the cost of food?

            replyreport
            1. 92

               habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Ummm...why does it have to be one or the other? I really like most of the commodties programs, where farmers sell their excess cheap to the government, and it's then distributed to the poor. Seems like a win-win situation to me.
               
               America is so wasteful when it comes to food! It used to make me literally ill to see all the perfectly good food that out school cafeteria threw away every day, when we had hungry students who could have taken it home with them. The lunchroom ladies hated it, too, but it was government policy. Even if it was against health regulations involving human consumption, the leftovers could have at least gone to animal shelters!
               
               No one in America should be hungry!!

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You did see the part where I said that farmers are paid to not plant crops, right?  Don't you think this would have the effect of making food prices higher than they would otherwise be?  Who does high food prices hurt the most?
                  
                  Why are we paying to support the poor on the one hand, while at the same time making food more expensive.  Does that make any sense at all?
                  
                  habee, there's always going to be some waste when you talk about food preparation.  Nobody can see perfectly into the future and figure out exactly how much food to make.  You've also inadvertently hit the nail on the head.  Government program.  Since schools get money for making food available, they don't have to absorb the cost of waste, the federal program does.  If schools paid the cost of excess food, believe you me, they'd find a way to efficiently prepare food.
                  
                  As for the food stamp program, you are aware that you can drive down some streets and buy perfectly good food stamps, right?  It would be interesting to see how many of these food stamps are bought by people so that the original recipient can get money to buy drugs or booze or whatever.

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I already mentioned the abuse with the food stamp program. I know it happens, but I still like the program overall. Kids shouldn't go hungry because their parents are irresponsible. Yes, I'm aware of the farmer programs - I was married to a big farmer. Haven't most of those been phased out? I think they have around here.
                     
                     As for wasting food at schools, I agree that it's impossible for them to know exactly how much food they'll need on a given day. But when they have extras, why can't they send it home with hungry students or donate it to our local soup kitchen or homeless shelter? Even send it to the animal shelter? This is something that really angers me!

                     replyreport
   3. 68

      ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I know, it's so hateful to donate to a religion that espouses brotherhood among all men.  Whatever could they be thinking?

      replyreport
   4. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Don't get me started on that! If I had a dime for every dollar my Mother gave to televangelist I'd be a stingy liberal!

      replyreport
   5. 59

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Conservatives do more and give more of themselves because it is the fundamental nature of thier character.    When a liberal sees someone in need, they immediately think "Oh, we need to get them on welfare."    Conservatives just see someone who is in need, and act on it.    The saying goes that if you're not a lib at 20 you're heartless, but if you're not a conservative at 40, you're stupid.   I don't know that I agree with that fully, but the gist is, that each person in need is a PERSON.   Unique circumstances , unique needs, and we rarely see "programs" as the answer.   Rather, individual thinking patterns, improvements of choices made, advice in context, and encouragement does so vastly much more than some "entitlement handout".   In fact, we tend to see entitlements as an obstruction to personal success, because instead of seeking to find genuine productive opportunity, the individual becomes focused on finding ways to game the system into more benefits and higher levels of support - often those decisions are polar opposites of what's needed to actually improve the individual's life.   In fact, almost always they prompt, promote, or otherwise encourage the wrong direction and wrong thinking.   Conservatives want people to succeed, one individual at a time, and see no point in simply handing people enough to make 'stupid' and "unproductive" comfortable or bearable.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         They make up some great fairy tales - I will give you that.

         replyreport
5. 72

   Jeff Berndtposted 13 years ago

   "Conservatives give more to charity than liberals do" is an oversimplification.
   
   From the article: "It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives."
   
   Another (and equally valid) conclusion that could be drawn is that religious people are more charitable than secular people.
   
   As a socially progressive, fiscally moderate person who has very little spare income to spare, I end up donating my time and my actual blood when it comes to charitable activism.
   
   Ought wealthy liberals donate more to charitable causes? Absolutely.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Good for you, Jeff! They won't take my blood, but I do donate time and money.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Which isn't surprising when you think about it.  Charity is one of the foundations of Christianity.  Of course there is always the chance that the charity you give may not actually do what you think it will.  Televangelists come to mind as does the United Way.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Never donate to anyone who deducts handling fees.... Tele-evangelists.... YUK! - hirelings who love the limelight and fleece the sheep...
         
         Ezekiel 34:9-11 (Amplified Bible)
         Therefore, O you [spiritual] shepherds, hear the word of the Lord:
         Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My sheep at their hand and cause them to cease feeding the sheep, neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more. I will rescue My sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.
         
         For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I Myself, will search for My sheep and will seek them out.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting passage.  I suppose that's why I find the idea of collective salvation so repugnant.  Should there be a God and we must account for our actions in life after we pass on, only we as individuals will have to answer for our actions, not some arbitrary group.  In the end I suppose God really will know His own.  And I doubt very much that certain people who are sure of their salvation will be counted among them.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Totally agree, we will stand alone before God, and a multitude of those who have already entered in.
               
               Imagine having your every unrepented sin exposed in front of a whole multitude of holy saints!
               
               I have often wanted to ask (any) Sunday congregation whether they have done anything in the last week that they would not do in the sight of the congregation (i.e. in the front of the church hall, with everyone looking on) and wondered how many folk would come forward after the service for prayer if you did that.
               
               Of course, every time of fellowship should be one of bringing conviction to those who are lukewarm, but that's a separate issue.
               
               We each form our own opinion of what God requires from us to be in His presence, but only God will judge whether we were correct in our assessment.
               
               I also believe that we may be surprised by who IS accepted, rather than find that our prejudgement of who WILL NOT be accepted, is confirmed.

               replyreport
6. 61

   mikelongposted 13 years ago

   The Mellons donate much money to their foundations, like Heritage.....and what does this organization do?
   
   What about the Social Contract Press......Mr Tanton's propaganda paper...or F.A.I.R....U.S. English.... These are all shell organizations financed by conservative donations...and I've received their anti-immigrant mailers over the past year and a half....
   
   And of course, the Social Contract Press endorses and distributes the "Camp of the Saints"...which speaks volumes...
   
   

   replyreport
7. 80

   Sufidreamerposted 13 years ago

   No worries, Habee - you can blame Randy for that one!
   
   I meet many Americans over here every year, and the vast majority are kind, warm and compassionate people.
   
   I have no idea what political persuasion these people are and I have absolutely no interest in finding out, but they are all great ambassadors for your nation.
   
   Sometimes, political allegiance should not matter - I judge people by their actions, not how they vote

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Sufi. I feel the same way! I'm a Southern conservative-moderate (on most issues), and my best friend is a liberal demacrat from "up North." We get along great! And heck, I even tolerate Randy! lol

      replyreport
   2. 62

      Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I wanna be a member of your church, sufi....
      LOL

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Me, too! Hi, Dan!

         replyreport
8. 61

   mikelongposted 13 years ago

   People throw around this word liberal.....and to be honest, there are many "liberals" who are really not so..
   
   When many conservatives have called for the deportation of undocumented, I have heard liberal politicians here in California call for revoking the citizenship of people born in this country by undocumented parents and desired to see the deportation of all of them....
   
   There's a lot of smoke and mirrors out there.....

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Good point, Mike!

      replyreport
   2. 59

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What part of "here illegally" do you not grasp?

      replyreport
9. 66

   Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

   That Times piece just confirms that liberals are generous with other people's money.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Funny, FK!

      replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

    Perhaps it just means what it implies , that liberals are more narcisistic , They have to justify wanting more for them, by first getting it for others. From the ones who give more anyway?

    replyreport
11. 0

    ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

    You know what they say about socialism? That it works fine untll you run out of 'other peoples money' to spend. Well, we're all out!

    replyreport
12. 61

    mikelongposted 13 years ago

    I grasp how "illegality" is a word subjectively used and enforced...
    
    The deportation of American citizens of Mexican descent by the U.S. government in the 1930's was illegal...but that didn't stop it from happening...or from it being erased from the American story...
    
    Illegal is the Bracero Program...through which the United States basically defrauded workers brought in from Mexico...
    
    I grasp "illegal" very well...how about you?
    
    Are you ready for truths tonight?

    replyreport
13. 78

    CkhoffmanKposted 13 years ago

    I say we kick them all back over the border an plant a huge stone wall with water canons. Honestly.
    
    I'm sick of my home state being overrun with cartels and innocent families homes being invaded.
    
    It's not our country's problem that they can't keep their s*** together in Mexico, and we shouldn't be allowing the overflow of it to come here and ruin our crime rates, property values and everything else.
    
    yes, I am a liberal but this is one stance I stand with firm with the conservatives. It's one thing to be compassionate, it's another to be completely stupid while letting a group practically invade, occupy and destroy your nation (via not paying taxes, utilities, destroying properties etc etc)

    replyreport
14. 61

    mikelongposted 13 years ago

    Wow....you really are "liberal"....
    
    Your knowledge of Mexico-American relations is sorely lacking...
    
    I agreed with your viewpoints...but I was in junior high at the time..
    
    "Compassion".........hardly... 
    
    We have to take responsibility for the problems that we have created...  Until we pressure the companies that "jumped the border" south to escape American labor regulation to respect the needs and rights of workers in Mexico we will continue to have problems, including those that extend beyond undocumented immigration..
    
    Replace "compassion" with "responsibility."  That latter is a word that American foreign and domestic policies within the private or public spheres are sorely lacking....

    replyreport
15. 0

    RFoxposted 13 years ago

    What I want to know is how they determine who gives more blood?
    
    Do you all walk into blood banks with your "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Republican" buttons pinned on your lapels or is it some sort of mandatory requirement to declare your political position when donating blood to ensure the political purity of any blood transfusion recipients?
    
    :p

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Holy Moly RFox, I thought the same thing and what a random surprise.  You haven't been here for prolly over a year! HI!!! 

       replyreport
       1. 0

          RFoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Hey Sandra!
          
          I know....life has been keeping me busy. Glad to see you're still around!

          replyreport
    2. 92

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Ya know, I actually wondered the same thing when I read the article!

       replyreport
16. 0

    ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

    One day the intellectual idealist liberals  are going to run out of every one elses tax dollars to spread around for all , when that happens , watch out man . Generally they  will just want it for themselves , they will drop their compassions like they do their  house payments ......Oh, that day is here!

    replyreport
17. 57

    C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

    You know an interesting twist to this thread is that the wealthiest US Senator is John Kerry. We are all aware of his political affiliations. Take a look at his charitable contributions....very low when compared to wealth.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       ahorsebackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yes ,but he docks his Eight million dollar yaght in Connecticut, to save his tax costs in Mass. At least he's frugal........

       replyreport
       1. 91

          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Incorrect.  He bought it in RI and paid RI tax.  Because of Fox News lying about that, he has now paid MA tax in top of that.

          replyreport
          1. 57

             C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Actually the boat was built in New Zealand, the interior was designed and built in RI. The boat was sold in RI to a MA resident. Like with most vehichles you pay where you stay..get it? Now if your a gold digging kept man and can afford to set up residence in RI(buy a slip). You can legally pay the lower taxes in RI. Personally I don't blame him.
             
             NEWS FLASH!! The Boston Herald was REALLY HARD on him!
             
             
             http://www.bostonherald.com/track/insid … id=1269698

             replyreport
          2. 57

             C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Only because he chose to move the boat.

             replyreport
       2. 57

          C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Most rich people are.

          replyreport