Let's start at the top, with Michelle
Obama in sharing someone else's piece
of the pie.

I know conservative give more charitably and want to help people strive to achieve. Liberals want neither. I have liberal friends that always want to "improve" what the government can do. Remember Katrina. Texas, a republican state rose up and took care of the people in crisis. There also were Vietnamese that pulled themselves together and took are of business. The liberals don't talk about them. Mississippi rose up and took care of themselves. But the liberals only want to talk about how the government let the people down in New Orleans. Basically they are saying, "They cannot take care of themselves. They don't have the abilitya and are too stupid to do so." conservatives rule. As long as there is a strong conservative middle class, the country can survive. ww

This is like the 8th time Wizbang has run this same statistic and I still have yet to see any hard numbers. Besides that, I have a funny feeling that most of his stats come from church donations, which isn't charity, it's stupidity.

jp2,

He referenced Will's article and the book the numbers came from--go read the book for the numbers. As for the "church donations are stupidity not charity", but "Huh?" If you are trying to prove you're stupid you can stop. We're convinced.

I'm an agnostic with a lot of personal reasons to really not care for churches, but even I acknowledge their charitable contributions. Just because you can't handle the fact that most lefties care more about "feeling" charitable rather than actually "doing" something doesn't mean you get to change the definition of charity.

Don't you realize that the liberals are willing to give billions of your tax money to charitable causes that match their politically correct biases, but you just won't count that will you.

Besides, all the spare cash the left has is going to Obama.

jp2, then I guess you'll support taking away the tax deductions for the tens of thousands of dollars Barack Obama gave to his church? And can we also go after the ministries of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan?

J.

I give significant amounts of personal time and money to helping the poor, down-trodden, elderly and needy. I help run a local food bank, and also provide home repairs for those that request it. I have had the opportunity now and then to teach people how to make their own repairs as well. I have had the great pleasure of getting food to families on their last meal. I don't do it because I am compassionate (I'm not), I don't do it because I am conservative (I am) I do it because I am a Christian. Kind of a job requirement in my book. I do it personally, not through sending money to a church or charity and feeling better. I do it personally because at this time in life I can, when I am no longer able I'll send money so others can. No, I am not "paying it forward," I am doing it because it is right and just.

I have lots of liberal and Christian friends and relatives that can't even begin to imagine why anyone would want to help others in need. They will donate to charity, but getting down and dirty, helping someone that might forget to say thank-you (rare), or that might smell bad, or be obviously poor, is something inconceivable to them.

As the character Morpheus said "There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." Liberals may know the path, but few walk the path. It's so prevalent in the liberal psyche that the reverse is usually also true. That is, those who know the path, but won't walk the path are liberals.

If you don't think the statistics are right, go to any food shelf or place where goods are regularly distributed to the poor and you'll find the volunteers manning the place are mostly church going folks and conservative. As you can tell from prior comments liberals think that's just stupid.

Wow, jp2. That was low even for you.

While ineloquent, jp2 raised a valid point: do church donations count as charitable donations? If so, they shouldn't.

I don't give as much a %age of my income to charities as, say, my conservative father, but I want a government that wants to take about a third of my income and spend it on other people, whereas he thinks tax rates for upper-middle class earners should about 15%. He doesn't trust the government with his money, but based on what I've read about too many charities, I don't think the government is any less efficient at doling out aid than, say, UNICEF. My folks used to sponsor a bunch of children in Africa until they realized the organization only dispensed about 20% of its revenues and spent the other 80% on its own internal bureaucracy. Leaders of the big charities here in Ontario make more money than any government employees.

But if your glib "analysis" makes you feel really good about yourselves, it really doesn't matter very much to me. Giving to charity is a good thing, reflects a good spirit, etc.. Ask yourself, though, whether a charitable act can be considered noble if it is motivated in part or fully by a conscious or subconscious desire to get into Heaven.

Liberals don't give as much to charity because the believe that Government should solve problems, not people.

Thanks Matthew (#10) for proving my point. You want a government that takes a third of your money to sped on other people. And deep in your heart, you know you want that government to take 90+% of rich, white, or conservatives money too.

One of the main differences between liberals and conservative:
Liberals believe in the government solving problems, Conservatives believe in people solving problems.

Kenny, I assumed it went without saying that yes, I think the largest burden by far should fall upon those who earn a lot of money. I pay a third of my income back to the government, and I can still afford everything I need and want. What of it?

Charities are inefficient. Governments are inefficient. Money gets wasted. Bears shit in forests.

Don't even bother to argue with Matthew on this. He's perfectly happy to be forced to give his money to a government who could at any moment decide it's not enough and take more. After all, charities are inefficient. Never mind that one can choose an efficient charity. You know, that whole freedom of choice thing is just so messy and requires thought.

Brooks' makes no clear definition of "charity" anywhere in his book. A "foundation" can be considered a "charity" under section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Not so curiously omitted is that such donations to IRS approved charities are tax deductible.
Residents of the states that voted for Bush are donating to "charities" that reflect their views also reap the benefit of having their donation being a tax deduction. The same goes for people in the "reddest states" -Charity via the public dole.
Merely an oversight by Brooks, himself an indirect "charity" recipient as Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

It rankles the lefties that they are stingy. You cannot deduct donations to a church. You can to a charitable institution. Conservative just care more for their community. ww

Matthew,

Please explain why church donations shouldn't be considered charitable donations?

You mention inefficiency, yet you are ok with the goverment taxing you and using that money as charity? The Government?? Every church I've known has been far more effecient at distributing charity than the govn't. Not to mention the fact that taxes are required, where charity is voluntary. Charity at gunpoint is not really charitable.

As for this statement,
Ask yourself, though, whether a charitable act can be considered noble if it is motivated in part or fully by a conscious or subconscious desire to get into Heaven.
You sort of have a point, in that my acts of charity won't earn me a spot in Heaven. I've done enough bad stuff to overwhelm it a hundred times over. However, thanks to what Christ has done in my life, I want to help others. For no other reason than they need it.

Residents of the states that voted for Bush are donating to "charities" that reflect their views also reap the benefit of having their donation being a tax deduction. The same goes for people in the "reddest states" -Charity via the public dole.

And the Residents of blue states are free to donate to "charities" that reflect their views, but they don't at the same level as those in red states. They know the path, but they want someone else to walk the path.

The idea that a tax deduction is the same as being on the "public dole" reflects the difference in attitudes between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think the money individuals earn belongs to them and a deduction is a tax cut. Liberals think 100% of what people earn belongs to the government and that any deduction or credit is a government subsidy (public dole).

Ask yourself, though, whether a charitable act can be considered noble if it is motivated in part or fully by a conscious or subconscious desire to get into Heaven.

By far the largest religious group in the U.S. is Christian. If you knew the basic teachings of that religion you would know how ignorant your statement is. Salvation (get into Heaven) is a free gift of infinite value that cannot be earned, it can only be received.

What a howler from Matthew, that churches are "inefficient." WTF does he think government is? It's a hell of a lot less efficient.

Plus, what's your data, Mattie? None, of course.

Liberals make shit up, so they don't have to read/think/analyze. It makes them feel "SPECIAL."

Feel this, fother mucker!!!

Church based charities get more funds into the hands of the needy in terms of actual help than do many non-church non-profits and extraordinarily more than government run aid.

"It rankles the lefties that they are stingy. You cannot deduct donations to a church. You can to a charitable institution.

False. You can itemize a church donation provided there is a record of transaction. Besides, I didn't bring up churches, Jay Tea did on the comments so he could conjure the Sharpton-Jackson-Obama-Farrakhan boogeyman. Rankle that.

..And the Residents of blue states are free to donate to "charities" that reflect their views, but they don't at the same level as those in red states. They know the path, but they want someone else to walk the path

Or that the charities that reflect liberal views require less money to operate -hello? efficiency?

Or that the charities that reflect liberal views require less money to operate -hello? efficiency?

LOL. What, you don't think helping the poor reflects liberal views, or did they run out of poor in blue states? You could be 100% efficient and spend 10% of the income of all the liberals in the blues states and still have poor people left over. Your statement is just another mental defense liberals use to keep from feeling bad about being so selfish when it comes to giving away their own money.

GWB,

Actually, jp2 was the first to mention churches with regards to charities.

Red states represent:

• 17 out of 20 with the highest poverty levels.
  
• 18 out of 20 with the lowest education attainment
  
• 15 out of 20 with the highest divorce rates
  
• 17 out of 20 with the highest rate of unmarried births
  
• 18 out of 20 with the highest rate of teen births
  

It's not surprising that charity is greater in states that require more of it.

lk png txs. vt fr th prt tht s mst lkl t tk vn mr frm m (th NDP). nd lv rll wll, n rltvl xpnsv ct. r vls r Lck's; mn r Knt's. thnk prvt prprt s th mst fndmntll vlbl thng; thnk scl jstc s. thnk tht ppl r nhrntl gd nd w cn dpnd n th kndnss f thrs; s tht pvrt lvls n r cntr dmnstrt tht n, n fct, w cnnt dpnd n chrt t nsr mrll rspctbl mnmm thrshld f xstnc fr thrs wh cnnt r chs nt t rn dcnt lvng.

s fr chrts nt bng ffcnt, th Hrt & Strk Fndtn hr hs hndrds f mllns f dllrs nd stll hd th gll t dmnd mr t p fr sm dfbrlltrs, nd th wn't dscls wht thr C gts pd. Hsptls nd rsrchrs wld lv tht mn, bt t trckls t, nd th hv t bg fr t. M frnd wrkd fr n nvrnmntl dvcc grp, tht spnt vr 80% f thr rvn n prtng xpnss. M prnts gv mn t smthng clld "Pln", nl t rlz tht th frcn grl th wr spnsrng nmd Kmss dd, nd th wr rcvng phts f hr ngr sstr ftr th frst fw rs nd nt hr. Th hd t wrt drctl t th vllg t cnfrm thr sspcn. S h, chrts r wldl nffcnt/nccntbl, nd smtms mmrll s--sm s th gvrnmnt, n r vw.

s fr m prblm wth chrchs bng "chrts", sm d gd thngs, bt mn pckg d wth prmss f sprntrl slvtn. nc strt wth th Jss/llh/Bddh-s-Mgc nnsns, thnk shld hv t strt png prprt tx n r rl stt, frnkl. ( ssm chrchs dn't p prprt txs n th .S.; th dn't hr.) nd nn wh spnds thr ppl's mn t tll hngr pr ppl tht th w t slvtn s thrgh prr/sbjgtn/bng mk, nd nt sstnbl grcltr nd rspnsbl s f cntrcptvs, s f qstnbl chrctr t bst.

r gvrnmnt s mr ffcnt thn rs. Whn ppl dscvrd tht hndrd mlln dllrs wr nccntd fr, th Lbrl prt ws kckd t th crb. <>vr hndrd fckng mlln dllrs! Thr s fr lss grft nd fr fwr lbbsts prsdng pls t stl frm txprs hr thn thr r thr.

Mc Lrr, dn't clm t b n xprt n sprntrl B.S., bt cld'v swrn tht thr ws lnk btwn n's bhvr hr n rth nd n's prspcts f gng t Hvn. f nt, wh b gd f blv n sch plc s Hll?

ll 'll cnsrvtrn ld-mths nd t gt ff r hgh hrss, b th w. gv fw hndrd xtr dllrs mr pr r t chrt thn ths snt lbrls n Nw rk (brv! th bst prt f gvng t chrt s rbbng r fckng rcpt n thr ppl's fcs, sn't t!), bt whn th rn hghr ncm thn nd vt fr ppl tht dn't prtnd t wnt t slsh thr txs, th'r hrdl slfsh, r th.
no quarter will be taken.

"This is like the 8th time Wizbang has run this same statistic and I still have yet to see any hard numbers. Besides that, I have a funny feeling that most of his stats come from church donations, which isn't charity, it's stupidity." -- jp2

Exactly what I was thinking, jp2.

As for one who provides hard stats, see Brian's fine post.

Brian--that is some funny shit right there.

Seriously, people who don't live in squalor might see less reason to throw money at problems.

Also, consider that some liberals understand that giving money to people isn't a sustainable way of addressing systemic poverty--it's a bandage. Want less poor people? Educate them. For free. As Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize in Economics) explains in plain English in Development As Freedom, parts of India that drastically increased public investment now have very high literacy rates and low rates of poverty, whereas jurisdictions that went all supply-side are home to the worst slums in the country. Educated people, Sen demonstrates, make better use of market opportunities; low tax rates don't help people stuck in cyclical poverty.

You're right, Asshat. I introduced churches into the discussion by boldly responding to jp2's assertion that "Besides that, I have a funny feeling that most of his stats come from church donations, which isn't charity, it's stupidity."

How dastardly of me.

J.

Brian,

It's not surprising that charity is greater in states that require more of it.

What, you don't give to charities that might benefit people in other states? Arthur Brooks' book tells us where the givers are, not where the needy are. The relationship between the givers and the needy is not their location. That connection is a drawn by liberals to cover their own shame.

matthew,

but I could've sworn that there was a link between one's behaviour here on Earth and one's prospects of going to Heaven.

The good news is that you're wrong. The bad news is that you're dead wrong. Salvation cannot be earned. It's the ultimate treasure guarded from the intellectual proud by an impenetrable veil, yet any child can find it.

Not much more to say except this: the reason they don't donate is fear. Fear that they will find they have given too much, and are now in danger of being out on the streets. Fear that the economy will crash, or the dollar will devalue. They don't give because they are afraid of causing their own demise.

Ahead of time, that is. They forget that EVERYONE dies; the longer they hold on, the longer they get to think they won't be touched by death, or loss, or pain.

but I could've sworn that there was a link between one's behaviour here on Earth and one's prospects of going to Heaven
-------------------------------------
Yup, there is no reason for atheists like Matthew to be charitable. They are simply products of mindless and purposeless evolution. They are nothing but biological accidental machines! Yet Matthew claimed that these accidental machines can know right from wrong. But Matthew admitted that he needs to do more homework on his metaphysics still.

Arthur Brooks' book tells us where the givers are, not where the needy are. The relationship between the givers and the needy is not their location.

Well, given the abysmal condition of the social infrastructure and values of red states (as indicated by the data), if it's not then perhaps it should be.

Well, given the abysmal condition of the social infrastructure and values of red states (as indicated by the data), if it's not then perhaps it should be.
-------------------------------------
Brian is trying to Obama as usual here. Look at the social infrastructure of the liberal utopia in DC, Detroit etc... and tell us how great they are.

Red States: poor, lots of teenaged mothers, high divorce rates. Blue states: people who would rather pay taxes than give money to their church. So... what are you disagreeing about?

Mac Lorry, I was raised Catholic. I assumed Protestants had a similar idea of how to get to heaven. Guess not! I'd heard of Calvinists, but thought they were something that went away a few hundred years ago. So there are people on this planet who still believe that we're destined to go to Heaven or not from the moment they're conceived? Do I understand you correctly? I'm not sure that I do, because the last comment you left here doesn't make any sense whatsoever.