“Conservative-headed families in 2000 gave about 30 percent more money per year than liberal-headed families on average, while (in these data, at least) earning 6 percent less income,” Arthur C. Brookes, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, said in a National Review interview. Brookes said that the biggest driver for giving is religion. “People who attend a house of worship every week are 25 percentage points more likely to give to charity each year than people who never go to church, and give away about four times as much money,” he said. And they give more to religious and nonreligious causes. The least charitable group tends to be secular conservatives, who give and volunteer less than secular liberals, and far less than religious conservatives.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
122 Comments
Notice it is the religious conservatives that give, and most of that is at church. I wonder where the data came from, income tax returns? In my experience, liberal families give more and brag about it less. So much for Jesus’ admonition to “not do as the publicans”.
Of course Christians give more to the church, they can deduct this from their tax returns. Who says secular conservatives don’t give just as much? Maybe they are giving without the ‘give me my credit’ attitude?
Maybe these church people are just wanting to look like they are considerate about charity when in fact, they are in church to network and make more money for themselves?
I wonder which is more credible: broad-based research, or the personal observations of one person of the people he knows?
As to tax deductability of contributions: isn’t a donation to almost any charity deductible, be it a church or something else?
I doubt the data comes from tax returns. Given someone’s tax return, how would you then classify their politics?
I know alot of people that give generously but do not claim it on their tax returns. Maybe they don’t qualify to itemize their deductions – so therefore there is no way to deduct charitable giving.
I wonder how this research was conducted. Just what kind of data was used?
I’ve never claimed any donations to charity when I’ve done my taxes. Never. And I give.
I think the problem is that liberals have no real meeting places to discuss these things- to rally each other.
Say I want to fix up a playground for some kids. I actually tried to do this at a place I lived once, where the management had just let it run down. I had some neighbors on board, had called some places to donate some materials, but there was really no way to get in touch with others.
I also did a community drive for autism research. I had put all kinds of fliers and notices in the paper, at churches, I got not one single call for donations. So finally I went door to door and managed to raise about 400 dollars. Most of which were cash donations, so I know those didn’t get recorded for tax purposes either.
People who are conservative usually attend Christian churches more often, the bible says to tithe, so they do. Plus most churches offer lots of opportunity for people to get involved in charitable activities.I think most people are good at heart and willing to give if they have the resources, it’s not just a liberal or conservative thing.
Stossel (sp) had the Salvation Army pick two of their busiest locations. One in San Francisco and the other was in South Dakota.
San Francisco had the most traffic and the highest income the money received was less than in South Dakota with less traffic and lower income.
They then interviewed the people giving and found that the majority of them were regular church goers that gave the most money.
Obviously dropping the money in the bucket had nothing to do with their tax returns.
Pretty funny how all you liberals want to make excuses such as we don’t have a place to congregate and put things together, those church goers are use to tithing we aren’t. You just can’t get over yourself that you do not give on your own or your own money. You spend a lot of time figuring out how to spend other people’s money but don’t touch your own. It is easy to raises taxes and say the program is for the children but it’s harder when you have to reach into your own pocket and give of yourself and your money.
Why is it that people claim to give, yet say they don’t take the deduction on their tax return?
You don’t itemize?
I’ve heard this skewed arguement fro Stossel and Rush and that crowd before. I don’t buy it.
When conservatives religious or otherwise give, it is generally tax deductible “checkbook” charity”. Mostly they do it for looks. It’s a choice they can afford like an overpriced piece of “bling” jewelery. It is more of their superiority complex at work. “I choose to give. I don’t HAVE to. So despite everything else I do in my life it is obvious I’m a swell guy!”
This false statistic does not measure the worth of time donated to charities. I am sure a study of that would find liberals of any stripe giving FAR more in the “hands on” areas of charity.
Liberals believe correctly that society at large has the obligation to be charitable. Quite naturally, we expect that those who live most comfortably in that societyowe more back for the priviledge. Whether they wish to do the right thing or not.
And Scrooge? Scrooge would best compare with a relgious conservative of today.
Just like clockwork, JR comes to bash christians, once again. lmsaoa
V.L.R.B!!
Hey Ian?
I didn’t use the word Christian even once.
Do you reconize them so much in what I said?
I’ve been a member of my church for many many years – 25+. And, people at that church give like I’ve never seen elsewhere: money, food, clothes. And they donate time to causes like GraceMed, Habitat for Humanity, Urban Ministries, ICT Food Bank…
JR is simply wrong. I’ve seen it first-hand.
I doubt Junior is much of a giver – at all.
This makes me so mad because I know we give tons to charities and just because it doesn’t count towards taxes doesn’t mean it doesn’t count.
And San Fran and SD? How many San Franciscans do you think give to a Christian organization that openly opposes gays? DUH! But I bet if you found another popular charity in the area it’d be more comparable.
JR..your generalizations are unfounded, crass, and insulting. On what possible FACT do you state:
“When conservatives religious or otherwise give, it is generally tax deductible “checkbook” charity”. Mostly they do it for looks. It’s a choice they can afford like an overpriced piece of “bling” jewelery. It is more of their superiority complex at work. “I choose to give. I don’t HAVE to. So despite everything else I do in my life it is obvious I’m a swell guy!”
What do you base this on, other than your oft stated belief that anyone who is not as liberal as you are is pure scum?
Having served for a year in Appalachia with VISTA in the early 70’s, built several houses with Habitat for Humanity, rung bells for the Salvation Army, given cash, raised funds, and organized an event that generated a full truckload of charitable donations every year for over 15 years, I vehemently object to your simplistic, wrong, and categorically FALSE generalizations.
I’m from the Bay Area Mom. These are the most useless SOB’s on the planet as far as I’m concerned. The homo-sexual community I am sure is the most giving of the citzens in the city and would honestly be an exception to the rule of the rest of their population. Rudest big city people (and again this is probably taking the homo-sexuals-at least the very open-out of the mix) I’ve ever seen. NYC, LA folks much nicer.I personally don’t think they give a rats bottom for their fellow man. It’s why their city is also one of the dirtiest, stinkiest of all the big cities, again NYC and LA much cleaner.
All that being said I don’t see why liberals have to come on here and try and discredit a story about conservatives, religious or seculars, charitable giving. Sounds like sour grapes to me. It’s like you can’t see any good in any Christians or Conservatives, when like with every other group of people, it’s a minority giving the whole a bad name.
Still no answer to the taxes question. I’m not doubting the validity of your donation – just wondering why you don’t claim it?
Is it because you don’t itemize?
Gentle people,
A Christmas Carol was a story that explains the joy of giving at Christmas time.
Ebonezer was merely a metaphor for the worst and the best in all of us. He was never meant to be an excuse for the libs and the cons to bash each other on Christmas Eve.
The true joy of Christmas (and in life) comes from giving of your time, money or prayers to others.
I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a joyous new year!
Hank
Well said, Hank…..
Great post, Hank.
That is exactly right!
This is a flame-bait post intended to escalate the bickering.
Merry Christmas to all.
I haven’t itemized since 2001. I never claimed my charities before then either.
It’s pretty simple really. When I give, I give cash. You know those kettles out for the Salvation Army- do you actually write down what you give when you put into the kettle? I don’t ever write a check for like 100 dollars to a charity- no, I can’t afford to do that. But I’ll drop a ten or twenty here and there to the people who I know runs those things.
Following up on Hank’s excellent idea, I propose a Christmas cease-fire . . .
I say everyone go give 5$ to a worthy charity. Today.
raptor?
“….your oft stated belief that anyone who is not as liberal as you are is pure scum?”
Oft?
Uh no I’ve NEVER said anything remotely like that.
Hey don’t bark at me raptor. You and goofnuts just made my point for me.
I APPLAUD your long list of giving. Good on you.
Think for a moment. Why post it? Was that for me? Or was it… for you? Did I make you feel just a teensy bit defensive?
Good. Go give some more today of all days.
Hey I don’t wanna demean anyone’s giving. Every bit helps.
It’s probably unfortunate to try and speak of Scrooge in terms of religion. Religion was not a theme in “Christmas Carol” and in fact the Christmas of Dicken’s time was not very religious at all. It was more a commentary on mans obligation to elevate the human condition.
it’s simple, if you don’t itemize, then your charitable contributions are covered in the standard deduction.
So you DO see the tax benefit.
Well darn it all, that’s not really fair then- because there are some who don’t give at all and still get the same deduction.
RIGHT? So I really don’t think that counts.
I’m sure that we’ll start itemizing for the 2007 tax returns. We’re starting a business-phht! And I will be giving more I’m sure.
There you go again – worrying about what others are getting that you don’t get.
“victim”
Oh whatever. I’m really not worried about it. Charity shouldn’t be about a tax deduction or guilt anyway.
Defensive? No, insulted. Your baseless claim attacking motives for giving was mean, unwarranted and flat out wrong. You make something up and then state it as fact.
Does it make you feel better to try to belittle others? Do you take pride in writing things that are flat out insulting? Are you really proud of your one sided prejudices that blind you to the reality that you cannot pigeon hole people based on their poltical beliefs?
*sigh*. Why bother. You have your smug little superiority complex going, and are going to demean millions of people. Have a wonderful time.
The Salvation Army openly discriminates against homosexuals so why would a place like San Fransisco be supportive of the Salvation Army when they can donate to less bigoted organizations?
Liberal areas tend to offer more in the way of publicly funded social programs and have a higher minimum wage. So the people give more in the way of taxes, unlike more conservative areas. Stossel is good at only looking at the data he likes, he is far from an unbiased social scientist.
“mostly they do it for looks”..and you CLAIM you are not demeaning anyone’s giving?
You should read what you write, sometimes.
“its more of their superiority complex at work”. And you STILL claim you do not demean anyone’s giving?
If that is not demeaning, then what the hell is it? You belittle motives and then turn around when challenged and act innocent?. Give me a break.
I went and looked up some facts from charities in the SF area. Appears they had a surplus of giving this year, but they were the place that had the fewest donations as well.
So I’m guessing they don’t have a whole lot of poor in need of help there?
Doug,FYI, people don’t GIVE taxes.The government TAKES taxes.
PeeMom,Link please?
SO what does that say about living in conservative communities? That they WANT to give a lot to charities, because they don’t want the poor to be able to stand on their own two feet?
That just slays me. San Fran’s new slogan should be ” Yeah we don’t have many charities here because we DON”T NEED THEM- we actually provide living wages.”
bwahahaha, you’re kidding right?
You, asking me, for a link?
Find it yourself big boy.
Pee,I doubt you’ve ever been to San Francisco. It’s one of the dirtiest, least maintained, least-moral cities in the country. XXX bookstores all over. Homeless people abound. Trash in the streets.
And…the smell…
Nah, Pee, You clearly lied about “facts from charities in the SF area. Appears they had a surplus of giving this year, but they were the place that had the fewest donations as well.”
No such data exists
Really, you didn’t look very hard. It was the first google hit.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/studies.metro.region/metroid/13/print/1.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/31/MNGR9EFN5I1.DTL
San francisco has the lowest poverty in the nation.
=)
I knew, given the proper instructions, you’d post a link.
Thank you.
Testicles <– puppetmaster
Don’t be silly, I knew exactly what you were trying to do. I was feeling generous. Consider it my Xmas gift to you.
Liberial
Heh…sure.
My work here is done…
::: dusting off my hands :::
I don’t think Jesus cares about how much a person gives to charity in the way of tax-deductible money but I do think Jesus cares about how a person treats the other person in need of charity. Wasn’t that his message to mankind? To love one another as I have loved you.
I seriously doubt if tithing to a church to build that beautiful big golden cross is really what Jesus had in mind when he taught us to love one another.
I really need some charity right now. I need a HVAC guy.
For my heater, not me. Just clarifying lol.
San Francisco gave one fifth of their donations to environmental research,which I hardly consider charities.
San Francisco’s median giving was also considerably less than the national.
PMOM,
I’m sure that an HVAC guy would be an improvement on the kind of dude that you usually scoop at the county lockup! lmsaao
V.L.R.B!!
I bet if you lived in San Francisco, you’d worry about the environment too.
State Prison Ian, get it right.
I have found that most secular, wealth White liberals only pay lip service to things like charity and diversity. “People” like streisand and fat teddy are cases in point.
That moron al gore bleats on about the enviroment but flys in learjets and travles in suv motorcades.
V.L.R.B!!
$60K in SF is virtual poverty, depending your age.My Mom makes about that and is fortunate that she got into her home in 1988. Someone in their 30’s or even early 40’s, no chance of getting “ahead” or a piece of the American Dream (owning a home) at that median household income.
Check some of the rents and real estate prices. The burbs don’t get a whole lot better and are in many cases worse. Not a whole lot of people want to live in the city.
http://realestate.sfgate.com/RealEstate/openhouses/SearchResults.asp
Kalifornication is truly the land of fruits and nuts. In other words, KIA, it’s a perfect place for you. lmrfosao
V.L.R.B!!
How is giving money to improve the environment not a charitable cause? Everyone needs clean air and clean water. Since the poor usually live in the worst environmental conditions improving that environment is a means to improve their social conditions.
Let’s go back to Stossel’s poorly done study. Let’s say we go to San Francisco and South Dakota soliciting funds for a homosexual rights charity. What would the difference be and could we conclude that South Dakota is less charitable if they donated less?
The previous comments that San Franciscans make more isn’t exactly true when you take account of the higher cost of living in that city. Real estate, taxes, fuel costs, etc. are higher in San Francisco but Stossel never mentioned that. Also what wasn’t mentioned was that religious charities usually include the church people attend. Most of that money goes to the church to pay for salaries, expansions, a new car for the pastor and maybe a little bit for a showy charity event.
I’m sure I’d never get included in the statistics as a liberal who donates to charity because I never report any of it. It’s charity, so why should I financially benefit by reporting it on my taxes? I give to charity groups, I give to my union, I give to individuals and I donate my time. Only one of those things could actually be recorded on a tax form.
So maybe the conservatives are said to donate more because they are doing it to make themselves look good. Perhaps it’s like how fundies have to pray in front of everyone and show off their religion to prove how much of a better Christian they are, not because they are actually doing something that is actually charitable.
Yes we grow both oranges and grapefruits and grapes and almonds and pistachios here.
Yes, Suza – “Whatever you’ve done to the least the of these” Jesus taught.However I just don’t happen to think that means handing over a $20 to someone without some accountability.
and that’s my point Kia. I don’t believe in handing over any money without some sort of accountability, especially an organized group – be it a church or charity organization.
I made this exact point the other night when the leftist on this blog were screaming about how much they did while those nasty relegious conservatives set around and did nothing. I had read this exact survey from that bastion of conservatism Syacuse University.
The best laugh I have had lately was in reading the “I give, me toos, mee toos” from our liberal posters.
No tax information was used for this survey. The information just wouldn’t be there to sort the demographics in this manner. It was a survey, double blind, that was taken.
Stossels research was done on a face to face manner. THe big liberals in California gave little or nothing but in a less affulent area the giving was much more the and the contributors were more or less all regular church givers regular church attenders.
Look at the real outreach programs in this city. The Lords Diner, His Helping Hands, Catholic Charities… I could go on and on but I think others made that point for me.
Merry Christmas from someone that went to church this morning and gave generously to those who would not have Christmas dinner without it.
How is it you say that JR? Get over it!!
Big charitable groups like the United Way pay their executives big six figure salaries and a large chunk of donated funds get wasted in “expenses”
The most generous people are usually working/middle class White Christians. Who is being more generous; the millionaire giving a few thousand or the people barely getting by who give a few hundred? Compare apples with apples and you will find that limosine liberals are downright stingy!
V.L.R.B!!
Suza I know that big golden cross must really rankle you everytime you see it. It wasn’t initially in the plan for that church. A person that someone in that church who I believe was living on the street was helped to get treatment for his alcholism. He was also reunited with his family and helped to live a very different life than the one he was living. He was a metal worker and wanted to show his appreciation to the church for helping him to get his life back and he crafted this cross to show his thanks. It was a donation.
But who is to conservative millionaires act any different than liberal millionaires? I don’t see this as a left or right issue.
According to the Bible, the widow’s mite meant more than all the gold the rich people gave. Why? Because it was the last mite of the widow and she gave it graciously and without expecting anything in return.
Perhaps that is the key here – when we give to charities, what is the motivation? To be recognized for our giving, giving because we feel guilty for having so much or giving because we truly want to share our blessings with others?
It comes down to motivation on the giver’s part – be they liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever.
Which is all well and good about the golden cross, but perhapss the church members need to recognize that fact more clearly. And, in that case, why didn’t the metal worker make it a little less gaudy? I’m sure the church members were all impressed with this. It’s the appearance of over indulgence.
I wonder if those conservatives who were giving to their church in Colorado Springs we happy knowing their “charity” went to buying meth and having sex with male prostitutes?
Contributing to environmental research is ‘tax deductible’ but not necessarily a charity.
To me a charity is giving to those in need. Giving to an organization like Environmental Research that have “wants” but not needs is not charitable with the definitions that I have grown up with.
Anyone that gives regularly to a church knows about tithe reports and the end of year amount most churches usually give to their members that contribute. I’ve know people who give more than ten percent of their gross income and never take a tax deduction.
I don’t consider tithing to a church as charity either, but it is a tax deduction. Some aspects of tithing may be considered charitable, but the majority of it is not (building fund, maintenance, Pastor and staff salary, etc.)
Mission funds and special offerings to assist the needy usually fall in the category of giving to charitable funds in my own mind.
I also give to Police and Fire organizations. I don’t consider them as charities or needy, but deserving of some help. They have some good education and life-saving programs in effect for children.
I give to American Red Cross and Salvation Army. Sometimes I wonder about the charitable aspects of the Red Cross as I’ve seen wealthy people get Red Cross attention when they probably didn’t really need or deserve it.Red Cross is lately more a disaster aid organization than a charitable needs organization.
The Salvation Army is largely a charitable organization. Their whole existance as an entity moves to helping those in need. I find that cause worthy to be classified as a charity and appropriate to give to.
Most people who claim to give to charity or tax deductibles barely meet the minimum requirements under tax laws, so they do not report it. This may be the reason why most people here do not take the deduction, either that or they’re just lazy. The extra money saved can of course be given to charity. :)
In my opinion, if you can afford it and don’t give 10-20 percent of your gross income to charity, you are not charitable. Anything less, low income earners notwithstanding, is not charitable but a guilt-giving exercise to free bad karma from their conscious.
And Doug, I do pray in front of others, especially before I eat in restaurants or in private residences or before events where people I associate with are gathered. There is no other motive to my praying than giving thanks to God or asking for guidance.
My problem with this study is, how did he determine if those giving were conservative or liberal? I attend church regularly, donate what I can to outside charities, and am liberal. Under the parameters of this study, I would be counted as a conservative. That’s the problem with this.
Good point Lib Dave. Maybe we need to quit putting labels on each other. Suza I don’t know why he made it that big, I assummed it was because his thanks were that big. It wasn’t mine to question why. You all have a very Merry Christmas. Have love in your hearts for all and extend kindness to those you come in touch with.
Why did ksgrm have to state that the big golden cross had to rankle Suza everytime they saw it? That comment sounds very petty and mean to say to someone who is only questioning about the church’s tax deductible money going to pay for the obvious wealth of the church?
This is why I suspect the conservative Christians in their motives for anything. They seem to always have to put someone down.
Sunny I had seen that mentioned several times. Usually you don’t mention something that often unless it is a thorn in your side. No meaness intended.
big golden cross…are you talking about the Immanuel cross?
But words do have consequences and saying it the way you did just made me wonder why you were taking it so personal that Suza was questioning. That being bothered by something coin has two sides.
JM,
The Red Cross charges for their services. They did this during WWII at the canteens. Charge soldiers for hot coffee.
I’ve given blood to the RC many times…until I heard they charge those receiving it. Maybe Libby Dole is to blame. That’s what I’ve heard, but who knows?
I help when I can. I’ve helped friends, especially, and friends have helped me. No offense to any groups, but I want to know where my money goes and who it’s helping. Too much of it is sometimes wasted. Yeah, I’m picky.
“(in these data, at least)”
What data I wonder. I know that I contribute a fair amount and a lot of it goes through religious entities even though I am not religious. So, I wonder where this right-wing publication and their right-wing commentator got their data and how they determined their conclusions.
I agree with JR. I have given all my life and I have never asked for a receipt. I am a liberal. I give money and clothing all year long. What kind of person runs home with their donation receipt to see what kind of tax break they’ll get? A republican.This GOP gloating is like saying that Katrina looked manageable from 15,000 feet, or that Iraq doesn’t look like the whole place is burning when you look down from 15,000 feet.GOP goggles….and look where our nation is headed.Impeach the grinning little pissant president.
I don’t think liberals are compassionate. There is documented proof of that, ie. this blog entry by the WE editors.
Many liberals are actually the net reciepents of donations and charities. They are the ones that we compassionate people help out and donate to, help get a hot meal and clothing and making sure their children have school supplies and etc.
We aren’t looking for any gratitude. It’s the rest of us that aren’t liberal just helping out our fellow kind. :)
Merry Christmas!
Joe Williams! I don’t know that a questionable interpretation by a right-wing publication proves anything. I guess based on what you claim I better place a ’stop payment’ on those checks I just wrote!
And Joe! I am not a recipient of any of that, unless you count my paycheck!
Your hallucinatory statements are as much a pile of BS as the National Review!
Doesn’t claiming all your charitable donations and other deductions on your taxes give you more money back and thus more means to give?You wear your giving like and not claiming as a deduction like a badge of honor when you could do more good by doing it.
Giving just to get a tax deduction is not true giving in the spirit of the Bible. I know of alot of religious types in my office that would go through their cupboards at home and donate the food items that they don’t want to the food drive. One very religious Betty Bible laughed at how she told her husband to go through and throw out the stuff you don’t want to eat.
Now is that true Christian giving? I don’t think so and I’m sure Jesus would look upon on that being somewhat selfish.
Even though someone is giving to their church, does not necessarily mean they are giving to help mankind. Maybe they are just giving to their church so that it would benefit themselves and get that tax deduction.
The Lord loves a cheerful giver. And it’s really between you and God if you are a believer. So other than that, it’s really not any of mine or anyone else’s business.
All I’m saying is, take advantage of the breaks the Gov’t gives you. You can do more of what you want with the money you get back. Believe me, if you gave 100% of your tax refund to charity, anyone of us would do a heck of a lot better with it than the Gov’t would.
After reading through this thread, a couple of observations to the reaction to this research:
Conservatives saying “Well duh. We already knew that.”
When faced with what appears to be broadbased, credible research with results liberals don’t like, they respond with a sputtering “Yea, but I give, I really do, I do I do I do, and those conservatives are evil, and gosh, based upon – well – nothing except my hurt feelings, I don’t agree with this conclusion. And besides, if those big bad evil conservatives really give, well, they only do it to get something, like a tax deduction, so they don’t really mean it.”
That about sums it up.
Oh – and BTW, JR:
Raptor called you on “….your oft stated belief that anyone who is not as liberal as you are is pure scum?”
You deny saying that, and while you have not said it in so many words, you have expressed exactly that sentiment MANY times. Not pretty, is it?
Luke 18:10-14: “Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
” broadbased, credible research”
I don’t know that we are looking at that.
Hey GOP conservatives- Hans Blix provided us all with extensive research and you still believed Saddam had WMD’s. Please keep your charity, buy a muzzle, some Chinese finger cuffs, and lock your asses in the basement in November of 2008 so those of us who are naturaly capable or interpreting reality can vote to get this country out of the gutter.
The charge for coffee and doughnuts by the Red Cross in WWII is true. However, what most people don’t know is that the chargers were ordered by Secretary of War Stimson.
Initially, this was done for political correctness reasons. The American GIs were better equiped and better payed than their Allied Counterparts.
The Allied soldiers, sailors and airmen felt alienated that the Americans had these free goodies and stayed away from the American Canteens. So the decision to charge was to soothe the ‘hurt feelings’ of the Allied soldiers so there would be an open door policy on Red Cross Canteens.
After awhile, when the Red Cross Canteens became successful, the funds were used not only to keep the canteens replentished but to buy packages for POWs and care patients in the various hospitals.
Eisenhower addressed this misconception in a speech in 1946. Evidently, not everyone got the word. :)
The charge for blood is true. However, it is a charge made to hospitals for the ‘required’ tests that have to be done for safe blood, special deliveries and of course storage costs under stringent conditions. Any other charges are levied by the hospital.
I don’t need to bible to tell me what to give to others. I have a heart.
Hey Jim G why hijack a thread on charity to make yet another liberal political statement?
I would be more than glad to debate you on an open thread about any matter.
JM – Jim G dis not hijack the thread. It was about charity and seemed to imply that bible-based giving is what it is all about. Like Jim G I give based on what my heart tells me, not some book or some preacher. How is that a hijack?
Hoooo Dawgies.We’re having us a good ol’holier than thou contest.
O holy night!Right here, right now on christmas eveon the We blog.We can turn anything into partisan bickering, huh?I do believe there is at least one constant in the universe.and the beat goes on….
Read up Ben,
Several posts above yours and above my longer post. What does looking for WMD and locking up GOP conservatives in Novemmber 2008 have to do with this thread?
Or do you defend these actions just because they are a Democrat?
Liberals are just doing the lord’s work.They are making sure that people are blessed.You know, blessed are the poorfor they shall inherit the earth.
JM – I cannot speak for Jim on that but I suspect his point was the same as mine – what are the data and how did the National Review interviewee come to his conclusions. I was struck by a similar thought – I have posted extensive studies on a topic from non-political sources and have been met with “we don’t believe the scientists”. In the case of Blix we were met with “we don’t believe the inspectors on the scene”. But now we are to take as gospel something from a far-right publication. As I asked above: “what data? what methodology?” One weakness I find is that he seems to equate church-going with conservative. I know many people who consider themselves liberal who go to church. Locally, look at College Hill United Methodist, East Hts, and some others who are deeply involved in social justice issues. They represent the old “religious left.” So, I for one consider the NOR’s claims to be suspect.
GMC?
Do you ever post ANY thread with ANYTHING but a comment on me?
Next time just send flowers ok?
And raptor loves me too. He got impatient on me while I was out shopping.
I stand my most of what I earlier said with this qualifier. I state AGAIN that I am glad for the giving for whatever reason.
I note that the header does not qualify “charitable giving”. It is unfortunate that conservatives do not consider ALL charitable giving. Greenpeace is a charity too.
Oh and kgrm?
The “look at what I’m giving!” on this thread is mostly coming from conservatives.
Stossels study has been thourougly debunked here. Why Phil decided to stick a finger in liberal eyes today I don’t know.
Back to Scrooge? Part of the reason I made the comparison I did?
MANY but not all conservatives are in favor of faith based initiatives to address social ills. I liken this to Scrooge’s “Are there no workhouses?” It is a way to relieve society at large or rather the most comfortable in society, of the burden of elevating the human condition.
A joyous renewal of the Sun to you all! Abundance charity and good will toward men!
Okay Ben whatever,
Feel free to trash this thread…
I believe it already has been done.
Okay JM whatever,
Feel free to misinterpret …
I believe you have already done that.
The point is that the very basis of the thread (the ‘claim’ that liberals are not charitible) is dubious at best.
By the way, Stoessel has been debunked so many times that if he said that 2+2=4 I would double-check it.
Well, it’s nice to know that WEBlog bickering is a 365 day occurence. I especially like the thread topic claiming that conservatives both religious and secular are somehow akin to Captain America (the comic book character, not the bloggerhead) and followed by the omniscient mind-reader JR and the rest of the Rat Pack to the left of Stalin, on the “reason” why all conservatives both religious and secular donate money.
Ben,
According to your rules of discourse, I can take one item out of any topic and bend that to meet my standards for discussion.
Okay, let’s try this…
I extracted this segment from the topic: “earning 6 percent less income”
Now, I can go off on my tangent of economic systems to ranging from feudal lords to Socialistic Communism. I can include the reasonings of Stock Market crashes and why some civilizations include sea shells as their monetary exchange.
Perhaps I will include how animal bones sacred to anthropologists are highly valued by Chinese pharmacists.
Maybe how children barter with each other using pieces of clay, sticks and doll parts.
I can just continue to drag in anything that comes to mind whether it applies to the topic or not just because it makes a connection in my own mind.
Einstein theory of relative and the interpretation that all things are relative to each other make sense in some context.
However, with my own addition I ask there to be a position stated on how chocolate syrup is relative to the speed of light and time travel.
Need I write more drivel to prove my point?
Psalm 37:7 – For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
It doesn’t matter if you are liberal or conservative – if you are an evildoer, you will still lose in the end.
Karma or Heaven – they are all the same.
I am at peace with my karma.
Drivel away JM – you are good at it. The difference is, questioning the “study” (sic) that is the basis of this thread is perfectly relevant. After all, according to that “study” (sic) I should quit donating to Catholic Charities and others because of my politics.
The basic point is this: We question the validity of your so-called study as reported in an extreme right-wing publication.
You’re right, JR, you do seem to have become a special project. I’m not sure why; perhaps because such zealous self-rightousness nonsense as you routinely write is so annoying. Egos the size of yours are simply easy targets.
Feeling persecuted?
Hey JM?
Ya better jump down GMCs throat! He didn’t ask you before he posted. And so he is way off topic!
Sometimes it is so easy with you people? I’m ashamed of myself!
Hey GMC if you don’t want my ego to grow? Quit feeding it continually with your love! And maybe you and JM should discuss “zealous self righteousness”
“Hey GOP conservatives- Hans Blix provided us all with extensive research and you still believed Saddam had WMD’s. Please keep your charity, buy a muzzle, some Chinese finger cuffs, and lock your asses in the basement in November of 2008 so those of us who are naturaly capable or interpreting reality can vote to get this country out of the gutter. Posted by: Jim G. | December 24, 2006 at 06:22 PM
“JM – Jim G dis not hijack the thread. It was about charity and seemed to imply that bible-based giving is what it is all about. Like Jim G I give based on what my heart tells me, not some book or some preacher. How is that a hijack?” Posted by: Ben Huie | December 24, 2006 at 06:35 PM
I see.
So, Jim G’s entry at the beginning of this post ties in with your followup post to mine that because another so-called right wing methodology can be compared as appropriate to any thread at any time.
I’ll have to remember this in future threads that there is a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid movie scene method of discussion when it comes to fights and blog discussions. “Rules? What Rules.”
Chaos it is then.
I bet he started with the erroneous assumption that all “people of faith” were conservatives. I bet this study is flawed in many ways. How is charitable giving defined, would tithings to televanglist, or someone like Fox, so they can maintain an extravagant lifestyle, be charitable giving?
“zealous self righteousness”
….could be defined as the bane of human existance.
God knows it has caused enough human misery.
Was is it Jesus that said the hypocrisy was an unforgivable sin?
If He didn’t, He should have.
Everyone should give to the maximum of their capability and no one or no one group has a monopoly on giving or hypocrisy.
To claim that liberals do not give is ludicrious.
Happy Christmas – War is over.
No JM, you miss the point. My first comment was to his ‘heart-based’ giving comment.
“”I don’t need to bible to tell me what to give to others. I have a heart.
Posted by: Jim G. | December 24, 2006 at 06:23 PM
Then, in response to you, I commented on his questioning the validity of this so-called right-wing “study” and its so-called “conclusions”. I consider that so-called “study” to be bogus.
But, the heck with it all. I will continue to give regardless of the political incorrectness of it. I don’t care if my giving violates some sort of ill-informed pre-conceptions you have because of reports in the right-wing media. So be it.
I do find it interesting that Phill Brownlee had to find a “liberal-bash” from an extremist fringe publication to publish on Christmas eve. I wonder if he is trying to prevent all us Liberals from giving.
So, in closing:
MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, and to all a good night.
A godd study should define its terms, and metrics.
Wasn’t Scrouge a conservative who redeemed himself by becoming a Liberal?
“Eisenhower addressed this misconception in a speech in 1946. Evidently, not everyone got the word. :)”
Sorry, JM, but I wasn’t born until 1951. Not even a twinkle in anyone’s eye yet. :)
I only know about the charges because my great uncle fought in WWII and was charged for coffee. He’s been dead for many years, so I can’t let him know what the deal was. I will let my mother know, since she’s the one who told me the story.
As for the giving blood part, I have my own thoughts on that, but now is not the time.
Dear Joe Williams,
Statistically, the red states (Republican) receive the most welfare, paid for by the blue states (Democratic). As usual, your partisanship and accusations are false.
And you still owe me an apology.
If a person gives to his/her charity, what difference does it make whether it’s subsequently taken as a tax deduction? At least, the donor has some say where his/her money is going. As opposed to the government taking it as taxes and spending it any way Lott, Byrd, DeLay and the rest of the “pork barrel scoundrals” decide is “good for us” — being the simpletons they must think we all are.
Statistically, the red states (Republican) receive the most welfare, paid for by the blue states (Democratic). As usual, your partisanship and accusations are false.
And you still owe me an apology.Posted by: RD | December 24, 2006 at 08:32 PM
I may be misinformed on the matter, but programs where States offer subsistence and other assistance are State Funded.
Other programs such as Social Security Benefits are of course Federally Funded.
I see those “Vision Card” things at groceries stores. As far as I know that only works in Kansas and one cannot use Kansas funds in another state?
Anyone know about this stuff?
JM — That’s a very good question. Unfortunately, as an answer to your question, I don’t have a clue! Logically, I would think that a Kansas Vision Card (which if I understand it is a plastic welfare check, in essence) would have to be used in Kansas. But on the other hand, a recipient of a welfare check could certainly cash it and spend it anywhere. Maybe that’s why they have gone to the card ??
Silly silly conservatives.
SO worried about someone getting a little help in this world that this is their Pavlovian response in the matter of welfare.
RD’s post is correct.
While it is true that AFDC and other such programs are state aid. You are forgetting OTHER types of welfare which do in fact flow from the blue states to the red.
Think AG subsidies, corporate welfare etc.
J R — So you are in favor of welfare on an individual basis, but you are against agricultural subsidies? No value judgment implied nor expressed, I’m just trying to figure out what you’re trying to say.
It’s not the ag subsidies for small farm that is the issue, it is the massive subsidies for corporate farming and the fallow land payments for large land owners that are unfair and unnecessary.
Futhermore, huge tax breaks for corporations that rarely even pay taxes in the first place are ridiculous.
Tax receipts could be greatly increased if corporations would just pay their reasonable share.
And they could start the process by slashing the bonuses paid to overpaid and underworked executives.
Whoops! I wandered away from the central point of the thread…please don’t tell JM!
Not putting a judgement on ag subsidies rm. Just helping square RD’s post.
WS said it better than me.
And that is it for me this evening. My 12 year old still has a sweet but skeptical faith in Santa Clause. I shall have to pull an EXTRA late nighter to make our home presentable for him.
I’ll mangle this. But my best attempt at quoting from the classic “Santa Clause is Coming to Town”?
“What if we all learned to give, as he gives? Maybe then there would finally be peace on Earth and good will toward men.”
One of my favorite Christmas stories is the Christmas cease fire of World War 1. If you don’t know it, it makes good reading.
To my “enemies”? I hope I bring something better in you. I’ll settle for just shaking up your preconceptions and making you think, as you sometimes do for me.
To my “friends”. I am blessed with your confidence, your trust and your love. Thank you.
And to all a good night!
Our resident drug addict must be hitting the doobies hard again tonight.
If the “corporations” don’t pay taxes (or rarely), then how do they get “huge tax breaks”?
Can they still sell their excess tax credits? The reason they don’t pay, or rarely, is because of the huge tax breaks.
The horse is dead. Thank goodness y’all have stopped beating it.
Merry Christmas to those who honor and celebrate it. I hope those who celebrated Hanukkah were blessed, and that this holiday season, no matter what your faith or beliefs, we all remember that it is a season of peace and joy.
Again RD! You are taking the wrong statitics and using that. You are mentioning the amount that the Federal Government gives to states vs. who much the tax dollars those people in the states put out.
Yeah! You’re right! Many of the states in the Mid-West in percentage wise and are net reciepent of tax dollars because of argiculutral subsidies and government jobs.
What I said was that liberals are net receiptents of charity and donations. Taxes are not a factor. I’m talking about people willing to give and those who recieve it, which are prodomently liberal people.
Big different, but nice spin!
No need for me to appoligize.
I find it interesting that the conservatives on this blog are so demeaning to those so-called lefties/liberals in that they are soooooo convinced that they indeed do give more to charities.
In the first place, if you are giving to charity just for the ‘credit’ then you are really not giving. What does it matter to you if liberals give big or nothing at all? Just take care of yourself and leave the rest of the world alone.
And for you Christian Conservatives, this petty fighting back and forth about a topic of which there is really no hard evidence of which side gives more, could be the reason your politicians were voted out of office in the past election. People are tired of this partisan bickering. And this tiresome fighting about who gives the most is just one example of such childish and boorish behavior.
Joe, you are one, sad, little man.
Scrooge would have definetly been a secular conservative. One of the things the study points out is that without the religious foundation that conservatives are just as likely to keep their money as anyone else. Of course a secular leftist would demand that you support their so-called charity whether you liked it or not. As heartless as the secular conservative sounds, it is preferable to the those who advocate using force to support their ‘charity’.
Interesting follow up on Bay Area giving.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16319100.htm