Yes, and wasn't there something Jesus said about how you treat the least
among us was the same as how you treated him? I mean, come on, when
ideas like that, which are thousands of years old, still have not gotten
through the heads of people then what's the use?

When you can't understand that it's only right to care for and help the
weakest in our society, and that the strongest (wealthiest) ought to be
paying the most to do it, then you're just plain stupid or evil. Look,
they understood the benefit of having the strong help the weak thousands
of years ago. What kind of person in today's world doesn't see the value
in that? If they can't then they sure can't call themselves a Christian.

Hawke

I think you paint with an awfully broad brush. For example, the Amish
don't participate in Social Security, nor do they participate in the
workmens compensation system. They do take care of each other, but
don't contribute to the general social welfare of the rest of us, not
that they don't sometimes help an "English" neighbor. They're highly
religious, but they don't participate in the system.

Most of the better off people that I know, already contribute a fair
amount to charities and agree with the general sentiment of helping
those in genuine need. Where they disagree is where the cutoff points
should be and that they shouldn't be carrying the majority of the
burden.


RWL

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:31:10 -0400, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane at
PTD dot NET wrote:


Yes, and wasn't there something Jesus said about how you treat the least
among us was the same as how you treated him? I mean, come on, when
ideas like that, which are thousands of years old, still have not gotten
through the heads of people then what's the use?

When you can't understand that it's only right to care for and help the
weakest in our society, and that the strongest (wealthiest) ought to be
paying the most to do it, then you're just plain stupid or evil. Look,
they understood the benefit of having the strong help the weak thousands
of years ago. What kind of person in today's world doesn't see the value
in that? If they can't then they sure can't call themselves a Christian.

Hawke

I think you paint with an awfully broad brush. For example, the Amish
don't participate in Social Security, nor do they participate in the
workmens compensation system. They do take care of each other, but
don't contribute to the general social welfare of the rest of us, not
that they don't sometimes help an "English" neighbor. They're highly
religious, but they don't participate in the system.

Most of the better off people that I know, already contribute a fair
amount to charities and agree with the general sentiment of helping
those in genuine need. Where they disagree is where the cutoff points
should be and that they shouldn't be carrying the majority of the
burden.


RWL

" Republicans or Democrats donate more money to charity?
I've seen reports where "red states" contribute more money than "blue
states" to charity.

I think there are books out there where conservatives are well known to
contribute to charity more so than liberals.

So don't you find it ironic than true die hard liberals are always
stating they want to help the poor but they hard much less likely to
contribute than conservatives?

Personally I'm a fiscal conservative. Generally vote Republicans but
have voted for fiscal Democratic political candidates in the past.

My first part time paycheck (this was making $4/hr ) when I was a
teenager, my parents forced me to give $25 of it to the local hospital
cause it helps the community. So you can't make the excuse you don't
have money to donate.

Now I am in my 30s, I make much more, my cash contributions are growing
the more I make. I contributed over $7K last year to non profits (mainly
hospital, ALS organization, both my wife and my universities). That's
not including the free work I do on weekends with my volunteer work.

To me, it just seems like the liberals are contradicting themselves when
they don't participate in what they preach: that's to help the poor.
They just want the government to take money from others and give it back
to the poor. Liberals don't believe the private sector can do as good a
job as the public sector in helping the poor.

If Obama/Democrats hits me with an extra $2-5K in extra taxes, I'd
rather not pay that tax and just contribute that extra money to the
charities I believe in. Cause I would know where that money is going. If
I give it back to the government, who knows what they will waste it on."


Read mo
http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...#ixzz1TBpz56nY

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:31:10 -0400, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane at
PTD dot NET wrote:


Yes, and wasn't there something Jesus said about how you treat the least
among us was the same as how you treated him? I mean, come on, when
ideas like that, which are thousands of years old, still have not gotten
through the heads of people then what's the use?

When you can't understand that it's only right to care for and help the
weakest in our society, and that the strongest (wealthiest) ought to be
paying the most to do it, then you're just plain stupid or evil. Look,
they understood the benefit of having the strong help the weak thousands
of years ago. What kind of person in today's world doesn't see the value
in that? If they can't then they sure can't call themselves a Christian.

Hawke

I think you paint with an awfully broad brush. For example, the Amish
don't participate in Social Security, nor do they participate in the
workmens compensation system. They do take care of each other, but
don't contribute to the general social welfare of the rest of us, not
that they don't sometimes help an "English" neighbor. They're highly
religious, but they don't participate in the system.

Most of the better off people that I know, already contribute a fair
amount to charities and agree with the general sentiment of helping
those in genuine need. Where they disagree is where the cutoff points
should be and that they shouldn't be carrying the majority of the
burden.


RWL

Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government
and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they
do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers.
Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted
behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All,"
"Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High
Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When
the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants
Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With
Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy
People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The
belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or
ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse
University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About
Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly
less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality,
Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a
social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these
findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than
those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on
average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed
household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave
smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of
states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above
average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent
majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity
was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40
percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to
reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people
who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the
values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences
on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role
of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is
religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political
affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of
self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than
quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between
religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are
disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a
strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable
cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice
Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was
getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of
Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita
charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and
conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a
majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of
America's richest households live in states where both senators are
Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than
governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a
retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare
state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing
taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that
has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however,
warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for
private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of
the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions
are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al
Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were
below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income,
one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at
the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to
government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly,
and conveniently, understand that word.



--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.