A Liberal's Christmas

mespock

mespock

Marxists - Socialists
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
13,765
Reaction score
22
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Somehow, not only for Christmas
But all the long year through,
The joy that you give to others
Is the joy that comes back to you.
And the more you spend in blessing
The poor and lonely and sad,
The more of your heart's possessing
Returns to you glad.

John Greenleaf Whittier
 
That's not a liberal Christams, it's a conservative one.
The liberal doesn't want the responsibility of having to do it.
They want the government to redistribute money and take care of the problems. The conservatives think it's everyone's responsibility to take care of the needy, through direct donations and actions.
 
mespock said:
No it shows compassion and caring for there fellow man - a Liberal's trait.

Sorry!
Click to expand...

You're half right. Liberals want people to THINK that they are caring and compassionate, but in reality they want to use other people's money to accomplish that goal.
 
mespock said:
Don't try to jump on the compassion band wagon...

You and your conservatives are far from that.
Click to expand...

Nice Rich, taking a personal shot like that.

You don't know anything about me, yet you attack me.

Pathetic.
 
Why is it that charitable contributions are higher, proportionate to disposable income, in conservative states than they are in liberal ones?

Because, Conservatives donate more money to charity. Because we have an obligation.
Liberals think that it's "compassionate" to have the government steal earnings in the form of high taxes, to be distributed as they see fit. But the liberal thinks its someone elses responsibility, the conservative does it themself.

Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with a lack of compassion. It has to do with the role of government and the responsibility of the those with means.
 
Here ya go, Rich, here's former presidential candidate (did you vote for him?) Al Gore, the leader of the so-called compassionate liberals.

Gores' Charitable Giving Raises Some Eyebrows

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 15) -- In a 34-page 1997 federal tax return, Vice President Al Gore and wife Tipper reported giving $353 to charity, an amount much lower than donations the family has made in previous tax cycles.

That figure is less than one-tenth the typical contribution amount for someone with the Gores' adjusted gross income of $197,729. That fact has caused some bewilderment in philanthropic circles because of the vice president's "good guy" image as an advocate for public service and social causes, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

"I would assume that he would want to do something to demonstrate that he was being socially responsible through his giving ... " Stacy Palmer, managing editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, told the Times.

The vice president's office responded by urging that the Gores be judged by their history of giving, not just the dollar figure from one year's tax return. Aides also said some donations could not be claimed on the form, including church contributions and Mrs. Gore's donations of food and clothing to the homeless.

"Contributing financially to charitable organizations is certainly noble and should be encouraged and is something that the Gores have done when the resources were there," said Chris Lehane, a spokesman for the vice president. "However, to truly judge a person's commitment to helping others, you need to consider what they have done with their lives and how they have spent their time -- and by that standard the Gores are extraordinarily committed."

[How insightful. Wonder why you don't think that way about Conservatives, Rich.]

The giving pattern of the Gores has been erratic over the years. Last year they gave $35,530, most of which came from the proceeds of Mrs. Gore's book, "Picture This."

In 1992, aided by the royalties of Gore's book, "Earth In The Balance," the couple donated $52,558. Most of that -- $50,000 -- went to the University of Tennessee to endow a chair in memory of Gore's late sister.

During the years in between the Gores did not itemize their tax returns, and therefore no charitable donation statistics are available for that period.

But this year's $353 ranks very low by national standards. The Times reported that a survey by the pro-philanthropy Independent Sector shows the average American household gave $696 to charity in 1996.

IRS figures rank the Gores' 1997 level far below the average for households in their income bracket. Among households reporting income of $100,000 to $200,000 in 1995, the last year for which information is available, charitable contributions averaged $3,377.

But experts point out that a single household's donations vary greatly from year to year. And Gore's defenders also argue that despite the vice president's salary, he has two daughters enrolled at Harvard University and a son in a private secondary school.
[Must be nice]
 
Calabrio said:
Why is it that charitable contributions are higher, proportionate to disposable income, in conservative states than they are in liberal ones?

Because, Conservatives donate more money to charity. Because we have an obligation.
Liberals think that it's "compassionate" to have the government steal earnings in the form of high taxes, to be distributed as they see fit. But the liberal thinks its someone elses responsibility, the conservative does it themself.

Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with a lack of compassion. It has to do with the role of government and the responsibility of the those with means.
Click to expand...
:bsflag:
 
pepperman, care to articulate a point.

Are you questioning my conclusion, or the research data?

New Hampshire Is Named Most Miserly State
By JERRY HARKAVY
Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND, Maine — New Englanders remain among the most tightfisted in the country when it comes to charitable giving while Bible Belt residents are among the most generous, according to an annual index.

For the fourth year running, New Hampshire was the most miserly state, according to the Catalogue of Philanthropy's Generosity Index. Mississippi remained at the top for generosity.

The index, released to The Associated Press last week, takes into account both "having" and "giving." It is based on average adjusted gross incomes and the value of itemized charitable donations reported to the Internal Revenue Service on 2003 tax returns, the latest available.

However, its methodology has been criticized and has helped give rise to new studies of charitable giving.

"We believe that generosity is a function of how much one gives to the ability one has to give," said Martin Cohn, a spokesman for the Catalogue for Philanthropy, a Boston-based nonprofit that publishes a directory of nonprofit organizations.

Using that standard, the 10 most generous states were, in descending order, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina and West Virginia.

The 10 stingiest, starting from the bottom, were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii and Michigan.

But a study by the Boston Foundation concluded that the index presents an undeserved image of New England as a region made up of Yankee skinflints.

"If everyone in Massachusetts gave 100 times as much to charity as we do today and everything else remains the same, we wouldn't get above the bottom half of the chart," said David Trueblood, a spokesman for the foundation. "And no matter what Mississippi did, it couldn't fall below 22nd or 23rd."

The foundation proposed an alternate measure of generosity based on each state's share of overall charitable contributions and income, adjusted for differences in taxes and living costs. Using that methodology, Massachusetts' generosity ranking last year would be 11th, instead of 49th.

Another new study, conducted by The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University on behalf of a group of New England sponsors, also boosts the case for residents of the six-state region.

That study, which supplements IRS data with a survey of representative households, found that individuals in New England give less, on average, to charity than people in other regions, but that the percentage of New Englanders who do contribute is higher than the national average. It also found that contributors in New England tend to favor secular, rather than religious, causes.

Cohn said he was disappointed that the Boston Foundation chose to attack the index without understanding that its purpose is to promote discussion about philanthropy and that it never sought to hang a label on any state.

Trueblood said he wanted to move the discussion away from rankings and toward ways to get people to be more generous.
Click to expand...
 
Calabrio said:
pepperman, care to articulate a point.

Are you questioning my conclusion, or the research data?
Click to expand...
You take something like this and twist it to make the conservatives look better than the liberals and that is :bsflag:
 
pepperman said:
You take something like this and twist it to make the conservatives look better than the liberals and that is :bsflag:
Click to expand...

Ummm...first of all, both Calabrio and I actually posted EVIDENCE, while all you did was post a BS flag.

What a master debater you are.

Second, these facts were presented to counter Rich's bogus claims bashing conservatives.

The only facts presented so far have been BY CONSERVATIVES in this thread.
 
fossten said:
Ummm...first of all, both Calabrio and I actually posted EVIDENCE, while all you did was post a BS flag.

What a master debater you are.

Second, these facts were presented to counter Rich's bogus claims bashing conservatives.

The only facts presented so far have been BY CONSERVATIVES in this thread.
Click to expand...
First of all your post just proves my point, you and Calabrio took something like this and twisted it, because you two felt like you have to prove that the conservatives are better than liberals. Well they are not don't you get the point, you two took something that was meant to be compassionate and turned it into something political and that is still :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :N :N :N
 
pepperman said:
First of all your post just proves my point, you and Calabrio took something like this and twisted it, because you two felt like you have to prove that the conservatives are better than liberals. Well they are not don't you get the point, you two took something that was meant to be compassionate and turned it into something political and that is still
Click to expand...

This is new to me. State your point.

I want to hear it.
 
Calabrio and Fossten took somethign was compassionate and twisted it into something Political that is :bsflag:
 
You are going to have to point out the posts.

I guarantee that I will look at the situation fairly.

No lie.
 
pepperman said:
Calabrio and Fossten took somethign was compassionate and twisted it into something Political that is
Click to expand...

I agree with you, pepperman. At least during Christmas.
 
pepperman said:
Calabrio and Fossten took somethign was compassionate and twisted it into something Political that is :bsflag:
Click to expand...

Ahem. This is the POLITICAL FORUM. If Rich was just wishing everybody a Merry Christmas he could have done that in the General discussion forum. Anything in this forum is politically fair game. Get over it and quit being a baby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 42 (members: 1, guests: 41)
Back
Top