RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 1:14:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

Could it be that the conservatives have need to use "hush money" and the liberals don't?


Lotus, that's it!
Now why didn't I think of the old "hush money" trick?



sissifytoserve -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 1:15:48 PM)

Republican/democrat...all the same.

2 management teams bidding for control of the CEO job of slavery incorporated.



dcnovice -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 1:42:32 PM)

<fast reply>

It sounds like an interesting book. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, saskslave!

I'm curious to know how Brooks is defining "charity." Is he, for instance, including donations to churches in his statistics? If so, it would hardly be surprising that religious people gave more. It would also raise the question of how much of the money given goes to support the institution and how much reaches the needy. (To be fair, this is also a important question to ask of nonchurch charities too.)

Back in the '90s, I served on the vestry of an Episcopal church. We dedicated 10% of our income to "outreach" programs (feeding the homeless, helping people with AIDs, transitional housing, etc.) The rest went to salaries, maintaining elderly buildings, office equipment, donations to the national church, flowers, and so forth. And some gifts were targeted for specific parochial needs, such as restoring the organ or buying new vestments. I'm not saying all this is bad, only that one can't assume that 100% of a donation to the church is tantamount to a donation to the needy.

Let's say, for instance, that Rachel Redstate gives $1,000 to her church while Betty Bluestate gives $500 to the local food pantry. On paper, Ms. Redstate would seem twice as generous as Ms. Bluestate. Pretty impressive, no? But suppose the church uses 80% of the money for internal purposes. Only $200 of her money would actually benefit the "truly needy," as we called them in the Reagan years. Suppose further that the food bank meets the American Institute of Philanthropy guidelines and devotes 60 percent of its income to actually feeding people. Then $300 of Ms. Bluestate's gift would reach those in need. That would mean that the "less generous" gift was actually providing more benefit to the needy.

All this to say that the landscape is probably far more complex than a few bulleted statistics would suggest.



saskslave -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:05:34 PM)

Zensee:
quote:

 How about a citation for this.  

Sure. 
http://www.reginachamber.com/databasedfiles/7106860-0-AZ37DB5/50802_April_Newsletter.pdf
Page 4, halfway down the right hand side.

How about social activist Reverend Harry Lehotsky in this April 30, 2006 Winnipeg Sun column:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Lehotsky_Harry/2006/04/29/1557189.html

Btw, Lehotsky decided not to take friends advice and get tested in North Dakota (it would have been 1 week versus a 7 month waiting list in Canada), and stayed to fight on principle his having to pay for healthcare that he can't receive.  He died on November 11,2006--another victim of socialist healthcare. 

I have personal experience like this--my aunt getting a phone call from the hospital announcing they were ready to operate on him 17 months after he was put on a waiting list.  Unfortunately her father had died from complications from his illness 5 months earlier.

Then there was the little girl from Saskatoon who had to go to Alberta to a *gasp* private healthcare facility to avoid possible death after the long waiting list she was put on.  And the postwoman from Regina who had her knees healed in the US and is now back delivering mail.  When she got back to Regina she inquired why the public medical facility was unable to detect bone chips in her knees.  The public facility sheepishly admitted that their X-ray machine was from the 1950s.

Yay socialist healthcare and its rationing of health services.  Everyone suffers in pain - or even dies - equally.



mnottertail -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:10:37 PM)

the criminal-negligence is where in these cites?



dcnovice -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:18:38 PM)

quote:

Zensee: quote: How about a citation for this.   Sure.  http://www.reginachamber.com/databasedfiles/7106860-0-AZ37DB5/50802_April_Newsletter.pdf Page 4, halfway down the right hand side. How about social activist Reverend Harry Lehotsky in this April 30, 2006 Winnipeg Sun column: http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Lehotsky_Harry/2006/04/29/1557189.html Btw, Lehotsky decided not to take friends advice and get tested in North Dakota (it would have been 1 week versus a 7 month waiting list in Canada), and stayed to fight on principle his having to pay for healthcare that he can't receive.  He died on November 11,2006--another victim of socialist healthcare.  I have personal experience like this--my aunt getting a phone call from the hospital announcing they were ready to operate on him 17 months after he was put on a waiting list.  Unfortunately her father had died from complications from his illness 5 months earlier. Then there was the little girl from Saskatoon who had to go to Alberta to a *gasp* private healthcare facility to avoid possible death after the long waiting list she was put on.  And the postwoman from Regina who had her knees healed in the US and is now back delivering mail.  When she got back to Regina she inquired why the public medical facility was unable to detect bone chips in her knees.  The public facility sheepishly admitted that their X-ray machine was from the 1950s. Yay socialist healthcare and its rationing of health services.  Everyone suffers in pain - or even dies - equally.


These sound like grim examples, indeed. I'm sorry to have to report, though, that the American system is far from perfect either. Our cracks (such as having millions of people with no health insurance) may be different, but they're real, and people do fall through them.

I more and more suspect that neither the market nor the government alone can deliver an effective and equitable healthcare system.



SHEmiss -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:22:27 PM)

I know it's a little off topic but speaking of charity, has anyone else read about "Secret Santa"? He's this guy who goes around during the holidays and throughout the year just randomly passing out money to strangers. He estimates that he's given away around 1.3 Million dollars. I'm not sure where his politics lie but wow! 



saskslave -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:38:42 PM)

Hi dcnovice!
Dcnovice:
quote:

  I'm curious to know how Brooks is defining "charity."

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html
quote:

 Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish.

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us? 

Dcnovice:
quote:

Is he, for instance, including donations to churches in his statistics? If so, it would hardly be surprising that religious people gave more.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/statistics.html
quote:

There is a huge “charity gap” that follows religion: On average, religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time and money. This is not just because of giving to churches—religious people are more generous than secularists towards explicitly non-religious charities as well.



saskslave -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:44:26 PM)

quote:

Now, that is reasonable discourse.
Ron 

Yep, demanding citations and examples of leftists caring for the children.  Reasonable discourse (just don't mention the numerous leftwing monsters of the 20th century "caring" for the children)...



saskslave -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:49:02 PM)

dcnovice:
quote:

 These sound like grim examples, indeed. I'm sorry to have to report, though, that the American system is far from perfect either.

I doubt any system is perfect.  However, there is an easy way to determine which sytem is better.  Count how many Canadians go to the US to be healed versus how many Americans come to Canada to be healed.

Nuff said. [;)] 



LotusSong -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:52:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissifytoserve

Republican/democrat...all the same.

2 management teams bidding for control of the CEO job of slavery incorporated.


But now, Sissy, the Dems have got to put up or shut up.  They had BETTER deliver.  Their reputation is on the line.  I think the American people are giving them ONE LAST CHANCE.  I know, that is how I feel.  I also don't have that feeling of forboding I did in 2000.



dcnovice -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 2:53:14 PM)

quote:

Hi dcnovice!

Dcnovice: quote:  I'm curious to know how Brooks is defining "charity."

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html
quote: Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?


The excerpt (which I read in its entirety) is interesting, but nowhere does it answer my question: Is he counting gifts to churches as donations to charity? I'm not sure the two are the same thing.

quote:

Dcnovice: quote: Is he, for instance, including donations to churches in his statistics? If so, it would hardly be surprising that religious people gave more.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/statistics.html
quote: There is a huge “charity gap” that follows religion: On average, religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time and money. This is not just because of giving to churches—religious people are more generous than secularists towards explicitly non-religious charities as well.


Now, that's interesting.

<Edited to try to make the quoted stuff legible; I need to learn how to nest quotes.>



dcnovice -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 3:09:35 PM)

quote:

However, there is an easy way to determine which sytem is better.  Count how many Canadians go to the US to be healed versus how many Americans come to Canada to be healed.


I'm not sure we're comparing apples and apples here. Americans who lack the means to get treated here probably also lack the means to travel to Canada for treatment there (assuming it's even available to American visitors).



QuietDom -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 3:15:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: saskslave

dcnovice:
quote:

 These sound like grim examples, indeed. I'm sorry to have to report, though, that the American system is far from perfect either.

I doubt any system is perfect.  However, there is an easy way to determine which sytem is better.  Count how many Canadians go to the US to be healed versus how many Americans come to Canada to be healed.

Nuff said. [;)] 


Of course, it's the wealthy Canadians who could afford better health care, were they permitted to purchase it, who go to the US.  And there are uninsured Americans who come to Canada for health care.  It's been a problem in some border communities where border control is nearly non-existent; uninsured Americans with a condition requiring immediate attention (serious injury, childbirth, etc.) dart across the border to a Canadian hospital.  (This doesn't work so well, obviously, at border points with long lineups in the East, but works much better in the West.)  Universal health insurance only applies to residents, but the hospitals' ethical code demands that in such situations they provide treatment first and bill later (as it is in the US, too.)   Unlike if they'd gone to a US hospital, however, the Americans at a Canadian hospital can take their new baby, stitches, cast, tetanus shot, or what-have-you, and stroll back across the border whistling a care-free tune, knowing that the Canadian hospital has essentially no recourse for collecting what it's owed.

You stop sending us your poor, and we'll stop sending you our rich.  Deal?



dcnovice -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 3:38:46 PM)

quote:

You stop sending us your poor, and we'll stop sending you our rich.  Deal?


I think saskslave is Canadian, actually. [:)]



cuddleheart50 -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 3:54:13 PM)

I donate all the time, without tax deductions...and I am a liberal.



mnottertail -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/19/2006 4:11:45 PM)

Unless I totally misunderstood, my citations would be:
Kennedys Peace Corps
LBJs entire domestic policy
FDR and the multitudinous three letter words...............
Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity
Hubert Humphreys fight  for  the  children of special nature........

I realize these are not websites with other agendas, not contained in any study by conservative mouthpieces, never mentioned on Rush Limbaugh and other prudent Fox News blurbs,  and these  people being far out leftist despot dictatatorial criminals,  will never  be considered to have done as much for the children of the world that  George Bush tried to accomplish for the children of Iraq , indeed; all being complete failures due to the recalcitrance of  conservatives to back these initiatives when the Bring the Heathens to Christ  campaigns are proveably  far more effective---
Just look at the inroads made in the last twelve years of a Conservative walk-thru in our government, I can only hang my head in shame, at the outpouring of  humanity from conservative checkbooks, it is no wonder they decry constantly; 'spend and tax you  stooges of the liberal minority, your answer to everything is  more money, but you have done nothing to fix the root cause, to destroy bigger government, and put the power in the hands of the people'---one can only watch in awe as the deficiet becomes bigger, after doing it in the Reagan years, and getting out of it, as interest climbs, as large corporations are given tax breaks to stimulate jobs and Kenneth Lay, god bless his conservative heart, gave an umbrella stand maker a new lease on life by buying a 10,000 dollar one.....


Rhetoric is rhetoric, but quite inconsequential in the scheme of things.

Now, I have been just reviewing my paycheck, and my taxes are higher than they were 6 years ago, but I have only had one raise in that time, and no plethora of potholes have been fixed in my area.  I also have worked in the state hospital system, and saw mainstreaming........but that rant would go on for years.

I think I will end here.

Ron









Zensee -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/20/2006 1:17:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

OH, it is canadian money anyway, so it really doesn't count.



Ha ha ha ha....!

Hey? Wait a minute....



JerseyKrissi72 -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/20/2006 1:49:29 AM)

I don't know about you all but I hate those people who donate to charity and take a receipt[8|]...To me it's like saying ..."I'll donate to this charity now so long as I can get my money back at the end of the year"...that is not charity.....charity comes from the heart not from the wallet..Like the story I was once told about a woman who gave $1.00 to a charity because that is all she had to give vs. the man who gave $5.00 out of his wallet and had thousands to spend...she gave from her heart, gave all she could afford to give....when $5.00 to him was nothing...Always remember that charity sees the need, not the cause...



Zensee -> RE: Why are liberals stingy when it comes to personal charity? (11/20/2006 1:56:58 AM)

quote:

 Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish.


Brooks has refined the definitions to skew results in favour of his prejudice (I won’t dignify it with the word theory). Brooks sounds like he majored in Sophistry.

If the purpose of charity is to help those in need, what difference does it make whether the proceeds come from the Government, i.e. the People collectively, or from individuals?

Indeed I could do a Brooksian twist and suggest that while liberals prefer their laws and policies to distribute wealth more equitably and to create universal, anonymous mechanisms for social compassion, conservatives favour policies which tend to increase disparity and isolate particular categories of need.

By reserving their compassion for the select, among the needful they have created, they are actually using “charity” as a means of political activism, while patting themselves on the back for being more compassionate. Sort of like corporations using charity as advertising.

Z.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02