Posted on 10/14/2014 7:53:38 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
We’ve known liberals are cheap, miserly (dare I say niggardly?) in their approach to charity which actually requires giving one’s 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 ...
whoops, sorry. replied to wrong post.
I’d have to check it out, but my memory is that it was a public school teacher, possibly in DC, and that he did lose his job.
There’s no reason why this lunacy couldn’t have taken place in a hundred places around this country. Not that I’m saying that it did, just that they haven’t found a cure for stupidity yet, nor for willful ignorance.
That was my point, exactly. there were no mistakes.
It wasn’t unavoidable, for instance that in Florida in the closing hours of the Bush-algore race that the networks announced that the polls were closed and soon as the Eastern Time Zzone polls closed.
Too many people are still credulous regarding anything the major networks report or say. If they cover it or say it, it’s true. If they don’t it doesn’t exist or never happened. Then, there’s the lying by omission and overt manipulation. You’ve got to admit, they’re relentlessly on point. What keeps them there?
Looks like there was more than one - I know the prof from UW, but there also appears to be a “Washington DC staffer” that lost his job over the word.
http://www.adversity.net/special/niggardly.htm
I (incorrectly) remembered that it was Robert Byrd who used the term when speaking about the budget, but it was David Howard who used the term when speaking about the budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22
Yes. Still on SA volunteer is worth 1000 liberal, progressive, traitor Democrats on the compassion scale.
My gues is, "Satan".
Yep. And that includes even their most marginal reluctant volunteer who just good off the wagon (?) and is sweeping floors in return for their charity.
My “progressive” friends (or is that ‘progressive “friends”?’), are oblivious to the absence of fair and balanced condescension toward Democrats in the theatrical arts, that would take decades of negative comments about Democrats, to attempt to match how the medium has denegrated Republicans.
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.