You’re supposed to tip those guys? Did you move luggage or anything or did you just drive a bus route?
Oh it is. Richly. But FYI, this is what launched it this time:
It was *after * I said it was a guess that she began demanding fucking cites. After having been slapped down on every other asinine thing coming out of her mouth during this whole thread.
Can we just get it over with and ban her now? You know it’s coming.
I don’t imagine that religious liberals give much less than religious conservatives and while churches may not be the most streamlined method of getting money from your pocket to the people that need it most, I would note the Catholic Charities is one of the largest humanitarian charities in the world (the same cannot be said of evangelical Christian churches as a group, mainly because they spend a lot of their money proslytizing (and if you really believe in eternal damnation, there aren’t many more important form of humanitarianism). Still the question of which charities are benefitting from this charity is relevant.
Sometimes people do make a donation for the tax deduction, there is always more to it but before you assume that those with the most charitable deductions on their tax returns are the most charitable, there are tons of legitimate estate planning methods that involve charitable contributions and a lot of tax schemes that involve charitable contributions.
One example of tax abuse using the charitable dedcution is the private museum. Bob wants to go on a safari in Africa so he calls his accountant Joe (who runs a museum out of his garage) and tells him he intends to go to Africa and bring back some stuffed heads that he will donate to the museum. Joe tells him that the market value of a stuffed lion head and a stuffed wildebeast head is $X. It turns out the cost of going on this safari comes to just about $X. Bob has just taken a tax deductible safari by contributing the stuffed heads he brings back from Africa. This no longer works but these sort of schemes are all over the place.
There are several way that people have tried to use charitable deductions to extract gains on appreciated stock and then donate the stock before the corresponding income is recognized.
I have no idea how the author cited by the OP is reaching his conclusions but if he didn’t differentiate “humanitarian charities” from things like giving to your church or donating money to the Metropolitan Opera, then the results are probably not the indictment of liberals that you seem to think it is. If the conclusion is reached based on charitable deductions taken by taxpayers, once again, the results will probably be a bit skewed by things like donations made to alma maters and places like the heritage foundation and tax dodges.
The Electoral College is not a technicality, it’s how Presidents are elected.
“Coming close to losing reecltion” is not the same as, you know, being reelected.
First, you misspelled “Supreme Court,” Secondly, the fact that Bush lost the popular vote belies your assertion that his “victory” in that election proved anything about the mainstream electorate, In point of fact, most voters voted AGAINST GWB. The Electoral College is irrelevant to the point you thought you were making.
Except, he lost the popular vote. So much for his views being “the majority”.
:rolleyes:
Some observations:
[li] Giving to a church (or any other charitable-sector institution) is considered a charitable donation. Even if what the church is going to use the money for is a luxurious mega-sanctuary, a new pipe organ, etc., etc. (The same would apply to a bricks-and-mortar donation to a hospital, library, etc.) So at least some of that money is going to things that would not meet most people’s definition of “charitable cause” although it’s strictly speaking a charity.[/li]
[li] Has anyone identified whether this study includes the value of in-kind donations, and in particular volunteer time? While many conservatives are in fact generous with their time, I have a strong hunch that liberals and left-leaning moderates tend to give more volunteer time to charities, as well as in-kind gifts.[/li]
[li] The politics of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, or for that matter George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and the location of states in regions of the country do not seem germane to the topic of the thread. While hijacks are a time-honored SDMB tradition, so also is bitching about them.[/li]
The Parable of the Widow’s Mite seems very much relevant here. The person (liberal or conservative) who gives $100 out of a $10,000 annual income is being far more generous than the person who gives $2,000 out of a $80,000 annual income. Even though it’s 1% versus 2.5% – the higher-income person can more easily afford the contribution out of “discretionary income”; the $10,000 person is probably at or close to scrimping on necessities to give the $100.
And in 2004, most voters voted FOR GWB, thus proving my point.
If you believe Diebold. 
Even then, he just squeaked it out. The “mainstream” is divided pretty much right down the middle.
What was your point in bringing up the 2000 election?
For that matter, what do you think the '06 elections prove about the mainstream?
I lifted luggage for people as a matter of course. But some people tipped even if all I did was drive them. (i.e. if they didn’t have any luggage.)
-FrL-
First of all, the popular vote matters didly squat. Second, what’s your take on 2004, when he DID win the popular vote? Or do you just continue to ignore that, for some reason?
Looking at the current polls and election, many who did vote for Bush are sorry now. And that is the current majority.
It does when you’re trying to use elections to prove something about mainstream opinion.
:dubious: Constitutionally. If you’re trying to define the “mainstream,” it matters a lot, and you fucking know it! Or am I, once again, overestimating your intelligence?
Being a Republican automatically makes you a member of the mainstream? I had no idea. Democrats got 48% of the vote in 2004, so isn’t Democrat Ted Kennedy in the mainstream, or awful close?
Still waiting for Carol to answer post #148.
So sorry, #158.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
[li] The Parable of the Widow’s Mite seems very much relevant here. The person (liberal or conservative) who gives $100 out of a $10,000 annual income is being far more generous than the person who gives $2,000 out of a $80,000 annual income. Even though it’s 1% versus 2.5% – the higher-income person can more easily afford the contribution out of “discretionary income”; the $10,000 person is probably at or close to scrimping on necessities to give the $100.[/li][/QUOTE]
Which is just one reason I’ve been saying that any study that doesn’t *weight * for income has virtually no value here. Because a much more likely interpretation is that all these studies show are income distribution disparities between populations. Without weighting for income, the numbers are meaningless.
And as for comparing states rather than ideologies directly, there’s just no validity to the methodology. That study is so much air. In fact, as I mentioned, if I were inclined to put out a partisan press release - I could say that study showed that taxpayers in blue states are two to three times more likely to declare a charitable contribution as people in red states. That number, though, is also meaningless.
I retract that critique on the OP’s study (but not the “generosity index” bunk). I reread the OP’s article and the author says he did weight for income, so we have to take him at his word. Well we don’t - as has been pointed out by Leviosaurus (in the third post, and we should have really closed the thread there), it’s not in a peer-reviewed journal, the book hasn’t even been released, and there’s no way to analyze his methodology. Also the Harvard professor they cite as lauding this study is Harvey Mansfield, which blows any possible credibility this guy might have had AFAIC.
So there’s no reason not to ignore the whole thing. I could say I analyzed the data and found that Republicans are lying scheming putzes (book forthcoming) and maybe get Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky to agree with me (I think they would). You don’t have to pay attention.
I also love the pathetic way they tried to imply the author had “liberal” credentials (he obviously doesn’t):
You have to laugh at the “educated in the liberal arts” part. The liberal arts elite indeed.
I just find it really sad when the notion of ‘charity’ (which** is** a really good thing in and of itself) is deconstructed into political or religious point-scoring and/or apportioning ‘relative’ goodness depending on the wealth of the giver.
If you were in need of a food parcel, or a place to doss down for the night, I’m damned sure you wouldn’t be asking about the background of the donor who made that food/accomodation available.
You can argue and intellectualise about who gives most or least, and what their motivation is 'til the cows come home, but it matters fuck all in the big scheme of things. Statistics might say one thing, but at the end of the day, it’s your own conscience (not the approval of your accountant) that matters.