Posted on 10/14/2014 7:53:38 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Weve known liberals are cheap, miserly (dare I say niggardly?) in their approach to charity which actually requires giving ones own money away instead of passing laws to force the rest of us to fund charitable causes.
Those who followed politics during the embarrassment of the Clinton brothel years remember that Bill Clinton donated his used underwear to charity in order to gain a tax credit. This fits right in with new data on who gives and who does not give.
We now have proof that liberals are cheap and conservatives are generous. A recent report from The Chronicle of Philanthropy reveals that wealthier more liberal Americans gave less money to charity in 2012 than they gave in 2006. Conversely, poorer people gave more during the same period.
The 17 most generous states all voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and not surprisingly, the seven least generous states voted for Barack Obama.
Clearly people understand that being charitable means a bit of personal sacrifice on their part. The breakdown of charitable giving shows that by region, the South, our most conservative region, is the most giving and the Northeast, which is the most liberal part of the country is the least charitable.
The city that is on top of the giving list is Salt Lake City and the least giving town is Hartford, Connecticut.
By every measure poverty actually correlated with...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Liberals take credit for forcing other people to donate...they feel no need to sacrifice their own money!!
Channeling our inner Robert Byrd, are we?
Conservatives are living their faiths and values, by contributing to charitable causes.
Liberals tend to denigrate religion, and tend to have no faith or values to live by. Liberals also feel oppressed and feel that they are struggling to survive, so they don’t have any money to spare to give to charity. They have plenty of money for IPhones and cable TV and so many other things, but not to give to charity.
But above all, liberals really feel that government programs should be doing all of the work of private charities, and feel that since those liberals who work do pay taxes, that they have already paid what they need to pay. And that government should be doing all of this anyway.
Liberals also fear faith based charities, because they are afraid groups such as Salvation Army might urge someone towards religious values in their lives, which offends the sensibilities of liberals.
Niggardly does not mean what you assume it means.
I presume you know, but the word “niggardly” has nothing to do with the word “nigger.”
Completely different source.
Nig, same root word as nit - small, insignificant, miserly, from the Norse.
That’s exactly what is wrong with collective salvation. Pope Benedict was on target when he called it demonically inspired.
In reality there is no collective salvation. Souls are individuals and can’t be saved by force and forcing others does not save the forcer.
We of the Red States are better people. We are better by every measure; and in many ways we pull the wagon of American exceptionalism which parasites in the Blue States are happy to sit in.
The only correction I would add is that there are plenty of conservative counties in libtard states. Our fair Commonwealth is but one example:
Note that the color scheme is reversed here: Red is for the liberals, Blue is for the conservatives. The only liberal counties are city clusters which are dens of wagon riders, fraudsters and the ruling class minions.
You beat me to it.
I was still shaking my head in disbelief.
It’s one step removed from “works-based righteousness”.
It’s worse.
I call it “advocacy-based righteousness”.
Libtards are statists and socialists, and believe that it is possible to plan and create the perfect economy and society. In their perfect world, charity would not be necessary, because the government would take care of everybody by means of redistribution of wealth.
You posted, in part: Liberals tend to denigrate religion, and tend to have no faith or values to live by.
***
I’ll have to disagree with you on that. Liberals have faith in the federal (but usually not state or local) government, and especially the courts. They have values to live by— the values of entitlement and denigration of religious faith, among many others.
And they hate competition whether it be free market capitalism or traditional religion. They can no more separate their religion and politics than can about 70% of your Muslims.
Good points. Liberals do have faith, just not faith in conventional religion.
Liberals have faith in government, and have faith in their causes, such as global warming.
I stand corrected that liberals have no faith or values. Their faith and values are misplaced, in my opinion, and channeled into different areas.
Actually, the color scheme is true. Blue is for Republican states - ie for Reagan. Red is for leftist, liberal, communist, progressive ... all manner of socialists.
The Alphabet TV News networks flipped the colors some time after Reagans re-election, in order to confuse west coast voters into thinking that Blue (iow conservative) states were winning, and so “no need to go the poll and vote after work.”
Unfortunately, that strategy worked for the liberal media’s darlings.
Probably, Republicans, conservatives, and Tea Party members will continue to have trouble with a) getting into office -AND- b) carrying out conservative fixes (for all the damages being done by the left) ... ONLY WHEN the various websites and media get these color assignments fixed - return to Blue = Reagan ... in present day matters.
I’ve seen similar maps of some other states, such as New York and Illinois, which show huge areas of those liberal states being populated by conservatives.
Take away New York City, and the rest of New York is quite conservative.
Ditto Chicago vs. downstate Illinois.
Even liberal California, when you take away LA and the Bay Area, becomes a much more conservative state.
Judas Iscariot syndrome...the first Social justice activist.
“Ought not that box of perfume had been sold and the money given to the poor?”(not that he was concerned about the poor but that he stole from the money box).
Christ’s response: “She was preparing me for my burial.” A poignant response, given Isariot’s coming betrayal of Jesus. Oh what Christ must have seen at that moment....Iscariot’s heart and his coming betrayal. I have to wonder if Christ’s voice betrayed a bitter irony, his eyes a trace of resigned sadness as he saw hell reaching for Iscariot’s soul! We can see the irony in hindsight...over 20 centuries later; the irony of the response and counter response shouting at us across time, cross and empty tomb. Just this story alone convinces that Christ is alive and is God in flesh!
At my IT job at a south carolina university, my uber lib female big (literally) boss would often put pamphlets for whatever pet cause the university was panhandling for. Usually it was some student fund. I threw them away. Her junior gal pal that ran a retail operation from her desk never seemed to get one. I looked at as a form of paying protection.
I give through church and a portion of any payout from stock media sales and Ebay auctions go to some animal rescues and other worthy ones.
I do it because I choose to.
I’m liquidating a project vehicle that I sort of fooled with. Doubt much will come of it but it is charity ebay auction.
Agreed. Good points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.