i think you meant still Unreal...
didnt you?
No.
On average, conservatives give more to charity than liberals, regardless of income level. We don't need a government program or new tax to serve as an incentive to do so. But obviously, liberals do.
Are you implying that a government program would serve as an incentive?
Does giving money to a church count as "charity"?
Foost comes out of the box with a moronic rhetorical..."Gotcha" question. Page 2 of the playbook.
Liberals love charity. Your paycheck, their charity.
"Does giving money to a church count as "charity"?"
In general, yes. When the collection plate at church goes around, it's generally understood that at least some of that money goes to help less fortunate people...i.e. charity.
Un-<expletive deleted>ing-believable.
Actually, it's all-too-believable. Liberals believe that government is the source of ALL goodness. Bonus for the P-I-Gs; it's one more layer to skim from.
Obviously, the Chair/Ohio Dems looked at Obama's tax returns. It is reported that he parted with only ONE PERCENT of his $6 million in income (last year) to donate to charities.
I'm with Steve. This takes freedom of choice away from the giver. Now we should let the Ohio democratic party decide where our charitable giving should go?
We all know where that will funnel to, All liberal causes.
hey, foosty, why is "chaity" in scary quotes?
take your head out of your ass and look around sometme,broomstick.
Giving to a church is a charitable donation.
Churches that, you know, use the money to help, for example, the homeless. You remember the homeless, don't you? Or do you need another symbolic gesture by Martin Sheen as reminder?
Is all money-giving the same, then? Giving $100 to a local church is the same as sending $100 to Jerry Falwell?
Are there other forms of volunteering, or is it all about the money?
Do people ever over-report in surveys?
Look at Foost trying desperately to matter. Asking rhetorical questions right out of the lib playbook. It's really quite sad.
Monetary donations can be tracked and accounted for. Volunteering time is obviously a bit trickier, but again, conservatives generally volunteer more of their time to charitable organizations than liberals.
The truth hurts, I know. But it's okay to admit that deep down inside, most liberals are selfish, narcissistic people. Classic example: Liberals who wear colored ribbons. It’s not about the cause the ribbon represents, but rather the attention generated for the individual wearing the ribbon.
Gus, I'm trying to stay on-topic. What's with the name-calling and insults?
Offhand, I don't think a radio interview with a Dem state-level party chair is all that relevant. I think his statement could be interpreted several ways. It may just be a poor explanation or rationalization of the existing governmental systemt that we were all born into. No, I don't think it needs to stay this way because of that.
I haven't read Arthur Brooks' "Who Really Cares" yet. I'd like to see how he explains the conclusions that he's been promoting in order to sell his book, or as we see in the examples shown above, how the glittering generality is used to bless and annoint the lifestyles of the extremely broad label "conservatives".
As I point out, do you think all churches are the same? Your contribution to a local pastor's lifestyle is equivalent to $100 on the plate at the regional megachurch?
P-Pants, data's data. What we can conclude is something else entirely. It wouldn't surprise me that, as Brooks says, people who claim they are religious also claim to give more, and perhaps that can be documented several ways. That's part and parcel of what many churches teach, no? Even in a few cursory searches of Brooks' statements, you can find that he admits that religious folks are giving more to their churches, but overal, they do give to other destinations as well. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about whether giving money to a church should be considered the same as giving money directly to someone in need, for example.
hey, foosty, why is "conservatives" in scary quotes?
you just cant bring yourself to believe that there may be some altruistic people who also happen to be conservatives, can you?
Still - As you can see, I was referring to the label. The claim "Conservatives give more to charity" has two pretty big glittering generalities in it. This has nothing to do with "what I bring myself to believe." Careful - there's a whole swath of conservatives who prefer to call it rational self-interest and benevolence, not altruism, though.
I'm not certain why you're so hung up on churches, but here's a thought:
I am more likely to give to a church, which I'm rather confident will use those funds for benevolent causes, such as feeding, clothing and taking care of the homeless, rather then handing my money over to a homeless person on the street, who will probably just use the money to buy booze or drugs.
See the difference? But bear in mind, I'm not just talking about churches. I'm talking about the myriad of charitable organizations out there. The church is just one of many.
Sure, I agree. Yes, I kept using the church example because there are churches that give in the way you describe, there are churches who spend the money who knows how, and there are churches who are like the drug addict, too. If you had to guess, what fraction of tithes goes towards maintaining the organization and what fraction goes to sheltering the homeless?
Well, I can't guess, as that's going to vary from church to church and community to community.
But I am most certain that 99% of my money that goes directly to a homeless person goes to maintaining their drug or alcohol habit rather than that "cup of coffee" they so desperately need.
Is all money-giving the same, then? Giving $100 to a local church is the same as sending $100 to Jerry Falwell?
From a tax perspective, as long as they are set up as 501(c)(3) orgs, yes, it is the same.
Remember that Congress was investigating a few of the big ones, such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyers, for abuse of ministry funds.
Now I will speak from an evangelical Christian perspective. I do know people personally and of other people who take tithing seriously (as do I) and also try to be good stewards of their monies; in other words, they research the organizations where their monies go, and in the case of churches, they do what they can to make sure the church is being good stewards with the monies they receive. Is it perfect? No, but it is our job to hold them accountable.
The other part of the problem with letting the government dole things out is then you are creating more government positions to (mis)administer these funds.
I'll keep directing my contributions myself, thank you.
Of course foust goes off on tangents and doesn't address the post. The government should in NO WAY take money away from people to give it to "charities".
Jack, I'm puzzled. I essentially agreed with the assumption of this post, I did not agree with the Ohio Dem, I didn't call anyone a name, and I started a reasonable, intellectual discussion of the topic using multisyllabic words.
Let me see. I should've just typed "Hell yeah" and left it at that?
No John you did not.
You insult people right out of the gate by implying that a church should not be a "charity"
You do the same old tactic of trying to inflame rather than participate.
You are good at it, but you are far from innocent.
I think the question of whether a church should be considered a charity is quite legitimate. I do not know how other churches operate but I know that ours does contribute quite a bit to helping the poor.
I heard a gentleman on NPR a few months ago who was talking about how federal food assistance programs were so neccessary because private donations only provided something like 15%. Don't take my money in taxes (removing some of my ability to give to charity), filter it through the friends and family program/corruption/mismanagement so that TRULY needy folks get pennies on the dollar and use this to justify the taxes.
Fred, you're telling me you don't have any opinions one way or another about the way churches are run? Buy a fleet of Benz for the pastor and his buddies if you can, because you're still helping the poor? I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I'm pointing out that the word "charity" alone covers a great many activities. Is building a new church equivalent to feeding the poor? Is giving to a fundraiser to help the church's school the same as feeding the poor?
No John, I'm telling you that you don't have a clue what ou are talking about and you are just trying to inlfame and divert attention away from the silly attempt of government to take over charitable government.
Tell you what come on down and check out my church any time you'd like, I'll even get you a copy of the annual report.
If you would like to scrub the sermons for political content, go ahead they are all online.
Ummm...
Aren't you conservative types the ones who keep saying we need more religion in government?
How about, instead of hanging the Ten Commandments in courthouses, we *really* make our government act like Jesus wants us to act.
For a list of priorities, please consult Matthew 25:35-42.
[Spoiler alert -- He wants us to feed the hungry, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, take care of the sick and visit the imprisoned]
Or are you all talk?
Fred, what kind of bad, evil churches (not like yours) are all about the Benz and the glass cathedral? Are there churches like that? Is a donation to one of those churches just the same as a donation to your humble stone accountable church?
Nowhere here did I suggest that government needs to take over charity. I said I didn't agree with what this party chair said. What more do you want?
Firelawyer, gee, there are plenty of Republicans who want to divert more government charity money to faith-based initiatives, but don't muddy the waters, OK?
“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's”. I'm not quite sure how this was turned into “give unto Caesar under penalty of jail time for tax evasion so that Caesar can give crumbs to the needy while bloating the size of Caesar’s realm while having a sweet justification to do so” – what’s the Aramaic?
Come to think of it, Bitter, I don't think the New Testament said you needed a fancy church building and a private school in order to carry out the Sermon on the Mount.
John you are correct. Unfortunately if a group of Christians wish to meet and dont have a private facility you liberal pissheads would rather see them imprisoned than let them use a public facility correct?
So if the choice is between building a private facility or going to jail what would you choose?
Luckily you libs get to practice and propogate your athiestic religion in public schools, universities, court houses, legislative houses, newsrooms, and even a stadium in Denver.
No, David, I think it's OK for any citizen or group to be able to use public spaces. What's with the name-calling? Does it improve the strength of your argument? Perhaps you misunderstood my remark.
I don't know why you brought this up because it is up to each church how it spends its money but you're right, fancy churches are not required to carry out God's will. In fact, I disagree with some of the more opulent ornamentation and tend to agree with those who say churches should have to pay property taxes like the rest of us.
The schools are another issue and provide what I understand to be superior learning environments for kids. My experience with children is limited to cats, however.
Yes, but the repeated generalization "conservatives give more to charity than liberals" glosses over the fact that, being typically more religious, more of their money goes to churches, and not all churches are the same. Building a glass megachurch isn't quite "charity" in the glowing sense of the word, is it?
John, would you say the same things about some of the Churches in the inner city of Milwaukee and else where, the one's with pastors with expensive houses, drive expensive cars etc. do they fit into your template? You know those Churches- liberal Churches.
If someone could revisit those conservative vs. liberal studies and parse how much is given by conservatives to churches only for church infrastructure and how much is given to food pantries, shelters, reading programs, etc. and adds this to the "recognized" charities that conservatives give to, I'd like to see the results. All above instances of conservative and liberal should be in quotation marks.
Foust,
Why is it so difficult to accept that liberals aren't as generous as conservatives? I mean...seriously? And why all the focus on churches. The last time I remember hearing a story about this I think it was people putting money into salvation army kettles. Conservatives *still* gave a higher percentage of their income.
Dan, that's who I'm talking about, no? You think that's "charity", too?
Gman, what did I say at 08.27.08 - 3:25 pm?
I guess the big difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is this...
Liberals believe that, in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, everyone has a right to a dignified life, reasonably free from hunger, violence, homeless and untreated illness, and allowing opportunities for work, education, and personal enrichment.
If certain Americans cannot obtain this quality of life through their own efforts -- whether because of physical illness, mental illness, economic circumstances, or the like -- then it is our society's duty to help them achieve it.
We believe this is not only good for the recipients of this assistance, but good for society as a whole -- it engenders a sense of national unity, it reinforces our respect for the value of life, and it diminishes the corrosive effects of a widening gap between the haves and have-nots.
Finally -- and this is the big difference -- we don't believe this assistance should rely upon the happenstance of individual charity, or that its cost should fall disproportionately upon the generous and not at all upon the ungenerous.
I expect an avalanche of derision from conservatives, accusing me of being a pollyanna who lives in a liberal fantasy world.
But I won't mind, because that is what I've become used to over the past few decades -- liberals saying "Yes we can" make America a better place for all, and conservatives saying "No we can't".
Well maybe, with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress for the first time in 14 years, the "Yes we can" folks will get a chance to put their ideas into practice...
Just one liberal's opinion...
Well maybe, with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress for the first time in 14 years, the "Yes we can" folks will get a chance to put their ideas into practice...
Didn't they have their chance in 1993 and 1994, with having control in the presidency and both houses of Congress? Shouldn't we have seen the end to poverty, health care for everyone, 0% unemployment, high wages for all and so on and so forth? What happened?
If you'll recall, the Clintons tried during that time to reform America's health care system, but the docs, the insurers, and the politicians they owned put a quick stop to that nonsense.
I laugh these days when I hear doctors calling the current system "broken", and pleading for reform.
Obama promises to try again, while McCain offers more of what hasn't worked in the past.
You choose...
but the docs, the insurers, and the politicians they owned put a quick stop to that nonsense
So then some of those "owned" politicians had to be Democrats since the Dems had the majority in both houses of Congress, yes?
Will it be any different this time -- Obama alone will not be able to change it all by himself.
"No John you did not.
You insult people right out of the gate by implying that a church should not be a "charity"
You do the same old tactic of trying to inflame rather than participate.
You are good at it, but you are far from innocent.
Fred | Homepage | 08.28.08 - 7:24 am | #"
Obviously you find the juvenille name calling and explicit insults far less inflamatory and far more acceptable. I mean who would dare "insult" someone by implying a position that someone disagrees with on a blog called "Real Debate". I used to come here to debate, but it is a joke. Now I just stop by on occasion to marvel at what jackasses* you and most of your posters are.
* Used to gain acceptance by using the preferred "Real Debate" manner of discourse.
. . . and there is nothing like a bit of drive-by condescension to make someone feel good about themselves. I think many of us and funny lookin’ too -
. . . are . . . wow, what a low-browed troglodite
I'll tell you something that I, as a conservative believe firelawyer. I believe that people should help themselves before asking for help. I believe that people should at least make an EFFORT to take care of themselves.
I don't know a single person that is not willing to help someone get back on their feet after a hardship. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON. The difference though, is that conservatives want people to actually TRY to get back on their feet, and not sit on theiir asses all the time waiting for a handout.
Let's put it this way. If there's just going to be "free" handouts for people (and they aren't free), why should I work. Why don't I just get in line for the handouts? Why should ANYONE work, or do anything for themselves?
and scott. Please. Cry more.
Gman,
I don't completely disagree with you. That's why I wrote that society must help people who CANNOT achieve a reasonable standard of living on their own.
But you must agree that there are areas of life where an individual – even a hard-working one – cannot improve his or her lot alone.
An individual cannot provide clean air and water or safe products for his/her children.
An individual cannot discourage his/her employer from outsourcing his/her job overseas.
An individual cannot bring down the cost of health care or college tuition to a manageable level.
An individual cannot break our country’s costly and dangerous addiction to oil.
No, there are some things that an individual – no matter how determined – cannot do.
Instead, we must choose wise leaders who we can trust to do them for us…
That's what being part of a democratic republic is all about - it only works if people are willing to work together toward common goals, rather than cowering in a remote cabin full of canned food and ammunition.
hsgbdmama,
Of course Dem congress members helped scuttle the Clinton health care reform efforts -- in those days, all the hogs ate from the same corporate trough.
Back when McCain was a maverick, he and our own Russ Feingold started down the loooooong road of disconnecting public policy from corporate donations and, if it continues, this might help make health care reform more feasible.
Furthermore, the American health care system has gotten even less effective and more expensive since the early 90's -- to the point that physicians and even Harry & Louise are pleading for reform.
Finally, of course the President can't change our health care system on his own. But wouldn't we be better off with a President who wants to change it, rather than a President who doesn't?
Firelawyer,
But, and I mean but, we're talking about giving to charity. I'm specifically talking about charity vs. welfare. There are *very few* situations where sitting on your ass all day should be rewarded with handouts.
Of course there are things that government does because they're too big for a single person to do. That's why we have government. However, that doesn't mean I want them taking the money I earn and giving it to people that don't try. I need that money to feed and take care of *my* family. If that gets taken away, again, why work?
But if the Obama plan lowers taxes on the middle-class, and gives more tax money to faith-based charities to fund their secular programs, doesn't that increase charitable giving, while putting *more* money in your pocket to take care of your family?
But firelawyer, I *choose* where I direct my charitable giving; in this proposed scenario, the government is basically saying they don't trust me either in making this decision, and that they should just take my money and make the decision for me.
This is where I deeply disagree. I don't believe in just abdicating everything to the government, especially if they are going to direct my monies to organizations whose work and/or philosophies I disagree with.
hsgbdmama,
And that's the same complaint that anti-war folks make about their tax dollars going to support the military-industrial complex.
And, believe me, the portion of your taxes going to domestic charity is much less than the portion going to improve the lives of Iraqis.
In a democratic republic like ours, no expenditure of tax dollars ever makes EVERYONE happy.
Our elected leaders just have to do the best they can and, if they fail miserably, you can always get new ones...
Commenting by HaloScan
