Read BrainGlutton’s post again and then tell me if that wasn’t an appropriate counteresponse. That wasn’t directed at all liberal thinkers.
I should have specified “in the long run,” but I think I already covered that in post #48.
Not much, unless you want to give them the choice to light a dobbie rather than a torch and take pitchforks to take over the Bastille. 
Seriously, I think **BrainGlutton ** is referring to more up to the point left-wing political causes regarding the current subject. Your attempts to assume that he is referring to left-wing causes that are not related is silly, same goes to Shagnasty
I can think of several ways it would. 
But for these purposes let’s define “left-wing” in strictly economic terms.
And I am reminded of what Christopher Hitchens said of Mother Teresa: “She did not love the poor. She loved poverty.”
Assuming it’s true, I don’t see how this is counterintuitive or even surprising.
Conservatives think that social needs ought to be addressed by private groups; both their politics and their charity giving reflect that fact.
Liberals think that social needs ought to be addressed by the state; both their politics and their charity giving reflect that fact.
Indeed, IMO in some cases someone who does not think the government should address a given social need has an obligation to give charitably that others do not. If you say that the homeless should be cared for by private charities, you have an obligation to give to those charities. If you say that that’s something that the government ought to be doing, I don’t see that you have an obligation to give to those charities.
It might be a blow to the sorts of people who claim moral superiority by virtue of their politics and imagine that those who differ are evil or something; but frankly, those sorts of people are pretty much immune to reason or anyway.
Yeah, uh… adjusting for income is great, and all, but if you adjusted my income without adjusting for my cost of living my rent and expenses would still eat up a large portion of my income, right? Just simply adjusting for income doesn’t mean I actually have any greater proportion of real extra money to give away. Percentage-wise, nothing has changed.
I wanna see how he derived the figures before I get all happy about conservatives giving away money.
My “in your face” attitude is directed at the liberals who are quick to point at the evil conservatives while not actually working to make a difference themselves. I pay my taxes so the government can do its job. But I’m realistic enough to know that the government is basically incompetent and strangling on red tape. If someone needs help now, I’m not going to just give to some political action group that might be able to influence legislation for 20 years down the road. I’ll give to the groups that are actually doing something now. I never said they are alternatives.
I know usually in the Pit we don’t ask but can you give me the cite on that stat? I’d really like to see how that breaks down.
Look, folks. If you give to a charity, great! More power to you! If you think that things suck but you are waiting for the government to do something to change it, then I want to know why. Some of you have explained your reasons and I agree that the government should do more. But telling a hungry person that maybe the government will get its act together is not going to fill his belly tonight.
By the way, I have never personally heard a ‘secular liberal’ say “conservatives are heartless because they don’t give to charity.” When I hear liberals say that about conservatives, they’re usually talking about the (perceived) heartlessness of being against abortion or stem cell research or supporting the death penalty. Saying that conservatives are charitable doesn’t fully counteract that.
What I came in here to say.
Conservatives give more to charity because they think that private organizations should shoulder the burden of social aid. We Liberals understand that this is precisely what the power of collective effort–i.e., government–is for.
Duh, you should have gotten a clue by now that you are excluding a big middle in your argument.
And the numbers come from the non partisan Tax Foundation:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/red_states_feed.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405100002
Honey chile, where have you been? You getting all your info on leftys from the WSJ? Or back issues of SDS manifestoes? Why did you leave out the part about “bongo bashing beatniks”?
I never go there. Too far away, and full of the gay. But I’ll take your word for it.
I have learned that the beatniks and hippies are not true threat to our way of life. They are strung out and no one takes them seriously. Plus, they don’t fight back. I no longer fear them even in numbers.
I am focused on the more determined and “educated” threats now. These people actually know how to channel money, our societies nectar, into the wrong hands waiting for an eventual revolution. They are even willing to let today’s poor and unfortunate suffer for it so that it will bring them more money and energize the cogs within our society and eventually thrust them triumphant into power to make us all equally poor and unfortunate. It will be the pinnacle of true equality.
Damn, he’s on to us! Curses, foiled again!
You are right, I don’t tend to hear liberals saying that conservatives don’t give to charity…it’s usually more of a “conservatives want to cut social programs and let children starve” kind of thing. My problem is not exactly with social programs, and I definitely believe in charitable giving and helping folks who need help. My problem is with waste and programs that don’t foster independence. When I give to charities, I research them to be sure that the money is going where it is supposed to, and not too heavily to administrative costs, etc. I don’t have statistics right now, but something tells me the government would fail dismally in that regard.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
It’s ridiculous to break it down this way. The Northeast has the bulk of the super-rich (who are by and large Republicans). These are a few people totally throw off the average income, and thereby make the so-called “generosity index” a meaningless number.
You can look at their own numbers and turn it completely around - say things like people in blue states are two to three times as likely to declare a charitable contributions as people in red states. But that *still * doesn’t tell you anything, because the red states have a higher percentage of working poor who are mostly taking the standard deduction and not itemizing their charitable contributions.
The only way you’re going to be able to find this number out is if you do a study comparing Republican charitable contributions to Democratic ones and weighting for income (not as a percentage of income - which is not meaningful here). Nobody here has produced such a study.
Hey, stupid fuck, it’s been pointed out to you several times now that your article doesn’t say shit about “liberal vs, conservative.” It talks about RELIGIOUS conservatives and SECULAR liberals and even then the results are rather dubious. Your OP has been debunked. You were too stupid to understand what you were reading. You may fuck off now.
As a liberal (hell, I’ll say it, socialist) I actually believe it is wrong to give money to charity because “private charity” just gives conservatives ammunition to defund governmental social programs. I know this may sound callous, but all the private charity in the world isn’t going to give us universal healthcare and I refuse to fund any half measures that hinder a full solution from being implemented.
Massachusetts has the bulk of super-rich Republicans? Maybe so, but how do Sens. Kennedy and Kerry keep getting re-elected then?
Maybe because they’re good at their jobs?