Skip to comments.Seriously: Liberals Are Cheap with Charity
Posted on 08/21/2012 5:06:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
A new study produced by the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states.
The nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers, writes the Chronicle. The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.
The study also found that the more religious states- which also happen to be more Republican- tend to give more than the less religious states.
No, no, no: This cant mean what we think it means.
It cant mean that liberals are just cheaper than conservatives, despite outward appearances.
Lets disregard what the data tells us, and go to that bastion of deconstructing EVERYTHING, white, liberal academia- with just a hint of Native American to satisfy a quota- so they can tell us what the study REALLY means.
So to make that point in other words to make the point that liberals ARENT really cheap- we need to cue the liberal social scientist whose job it is to explain to us that the results of the study dont really say what they say.
We'll let Professor Running Mouth explain it.
Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said. And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college's Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life.
Wolfe said people in less religious states "view the tax money they're paying not as something that's forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they're citizens in the common good. I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they're being altruistic."
In other words: You cant build private charity efficiently-or anything else- without the government being involved.
Because, yes, we all know that government bureaucracies are so much more efficient at delivering superior charity.
I mean gosh, look at Medicaid.
All it takes is a village and another tax increase to keep it from going bankrupt.
Thank goodness for the vast improvements social scientists have made in our lives over the last hundred years.
And thank goodness for liberals who can be so liberal with other peoples money and so stingy with their own.
Without them, people like you and I might actually believe that Abraham Lincoln was on to something when he said In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.
Or perhaps wed fall under the charms of Thomas Jefferson who said Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
Or this pearl from James Madison: I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.
HOW STATES RANK IN GENEROSITY
But of course, now we know, thanks to social scientists like Alan Wolfe, how imbecilic guys like Jefferson, Lincoln and Madison were.
They are just more Dead White Guys who we can safely ignore as the government racks up more debt.
Thank goodness for the study.
But our heartfelt thanks must be reserved for those academics who have prevented us from believing that the results of the study mean that liberals are miserly when it comes to charity- which of course is what the untrained, non-academic might infer from the study.
Because we are all citizens of the cosmic good, man. And we belong to each other, dude.
To put it another way: pay taxes = good; private charity = bad.
And without guys like Professor Wolfe making those feeble arguments, people might actually take liberals seriously.
No. Still not seriously at all.
The motto of liberals everywhere is “With my guilt and your gelt, we can do anything!”
It’s just the natural conclusion of the religion of Humanism, starting with the lie “you will be as gods, knowing good and evil”.
My understanding from discussions with liberals on this:
They paid their taxes, so they don’t need to give to charity.
They are green/eco-friendly, that helps the planet, so charity is redundant.
They got the government to increase social spending. That policy change affects thousands or millions, and is more than what one person could give. So getting the government to lock up millions of acres or fund arcane research with others money is a “multiplier effect of good” and better than raising money to research or solve problems, like the March of Dimes or St. Jude’s hospital.
Another tip off is, Libs dislike leaving a tip for the waiter.
I just tell them that doesn’t satisfy, in the least, the REQUIREMENT that they, as individuals, be charitable, and viscerally they know it.
Any righteousness they feel is false, temporal and short-lived.
thats hilarious...they only pay taxes because guys with guns will lock em up if they dont...
Id like to see the returns, and how much they refuse to take deductions to lessen the tax they pay...such as BJ clintoooon claiming donations of used undies for a *charitable* write off...
I am not sure that this is not becoming true; at least not with major non-religiously affiliated charities.
When you look at charities like the United Way the bureaucracy and overhead associated with this organization is gigantic.
The leadership of this organization hobnobs with CEOs of big business and is treated and paid as if he was one.
Charity in this country has become big business and some of the people who lead these charities are reaping the rewards of their entrepreneurship.
Perhaps these people are creative and resourceful people and should be rewarded for their efforts, but to me there is an unseemliness in someone collecting a million plus salary on the back of a charitable organization.
I have the greatest respect for the Salvation Army as an organization. The people in that organization live the lives of true believers; no luxuries just a life devoted to helping the worst off. If you throw your change in their red pot at Christmas you can depend on that money going to help the poor.
I lose around 40% of my income to taxes and fees, most of which goes to social programs I don’t want to support. If they’d stop robbing me I’d start giving to charities.
So liberals are noble because the WANT to pay the taxes that everyone is forced to pay. Yeah, I get it.
Probably 90% of the continuous givers would be right-of-center. And since there were only a handful of additional people that gave, even if they were all libs (doubtful), it still would have been 80%+ towards the repub/conservative side.
I agree with the general sentiment here the libs dont want to be bothered providing their own money directly, if its taken out in taxes they never see it so they dont care (apparently). Let someone else do it.
As an aside, its not like the required amount was any huge figure you could sign up for the campaign with as little as a $15 gift (not weekly or monthly but for the year). I was actually shocked at how few people chose to give.
Liberals often remind me of pharisees.
The ‘look at me,’ look how much, look what I did, look at my protestations for the poor....even when they go to a soup kitchen they have to tell everyone what they are doing and ‘show off their goodness.’
Yet, red states...conservatives...give and give without all the drama.
Yesterday there was an editorial regarding paying taxes as patriotic...liberals think that way because they do see taxes as a vehical of charity...for the rich to fund.
Liberals talk like that, like paying taxes is patriotic and a duty of being a good citizen. But since most look for every-loophole they can find in practice they really mean : “Its my patriotic and civic duty to vote for higher taxes on other people”
Clearly libs do not object to Obama bragging about all the free stuff he gave voters while telling them he kept them from having to pay taxes.
One thing : Democrats to love to call Republicans hypocrites everyday, Republicans dont seem to know how to play that game. If paying taxes is so patriotic then why dont libs go after Obama for bragging about 'tax cuts'?
Connecticut ranks first among New England states - at 45.
45 - Connecticut
46 - Rhode Island
47 - Massachusetts
48 - Vermont
49 - Maine
50 - New Hampshire
They really are individualists up there.
For the same reason that Europeans are.
Why do I need to help the poor? We have a government for that. And besides they take enough of my income away in taxes that I can no longer spare it.
” Liberals talk like that, like paying taxes is patriotic and a duty of being a good citizen. But since most look for every-loophole they can find in practice they really mean “
Liberals with dough hire only the best tax lawyers, and donate little or nothing to charity. They have deep pockets, and short arms.
They are tight with a nickel in New England.
They fall back on the “fall thru the cracks” problem, observing that charities are great but don’t catch everyone, that the government - in theory - does by _compelling_ aid to all instead of hoping there’s enough volunteering. Also, most charities are inextricably tangled up with religious organizations which tolerant Liberals cannot tolerate association with, so out of respect for diversity they swing the “separation of church and state” axe against diverse views and sever any obligation they may feel. Having wielded those end-all arguments, they feel(!) vindicated; government having thus been declared the compulsory all-saving religion-free savior of the downtrodden, problem solved, they feel good about their conclusion, and anyone expressing opposition must be Satan (well, Republican) incarnate. They are unconcerned with subsequent failures of government-mandated welfare programs because there cannot, by definition, be any problems.
For them, government is the end-all solution to all problems, therefore government shall be the end-all solution to all problems; if your views diverge from the gatekeepers of diversity, the atheists declare you guilty of heresy and the defenders of all cultures must destroy your culture. The profusion of self-contradiction and cognitive dissonance is incomprehensible to them.
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.