News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Liberals--Great Spenders of Other People's Money

Started by guido911, December 21, 2008, 12:07:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

azbadpuppy

quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

It is a well documented trend that liberals give less to "charity" than conservatives.  It is also true that gifts to churches count as charitable giving.  Even if said church uses the money for new facilities, social events, or fancy cars for certain members.  

I'm going to start a charity that uses most of our donations on booze filled parties, and I'm not talking about the Shriners.

Honestly, I'm willing to bet the church giving is the difference.  And IMHO, most of that is in support of a social club since most churches consume most of their resources internally.

Also worth giving Drew Curtis a shout out on the lazy reporting thing.  Soon to be in the news:  Santa Stories.  Consumer spending trends.  Gym membership stories and other failed resolutions. And the cycle continues...



Bingo! That's it exactly. Church tithing should not be considered 'charity'. It only takes one short drive around Tulsa to see that the 'mega' churches, the Southern Baptists and many others are hardly hurting for money, as their constantly expanding and gentrifying facilities (and pastor salaries) are a testament to that 'charitable' giving.

Tithing should be classified as a membership fee. If tithing was taken out of the equation, I guarantee this story would read a whole lot differently.
 

Hometown

Republican One Trick Pony:  Borrow, borrow, borrow.

They have saddled generations with debt.

The People's Debt -- courtesy of the Republican Party.


lydiem

We pay taxes for social and public services that should not be financed by charities.  But, for the past eight years tax money has been used to finance 'war-fare' instead of 'well-fare' ...  strange conservative priorities!!!

Second, "charity" is a generic label that include so-called "non-profit" religious organizations, otherwise called "churches" and "mega-churches"...  And since conservatives are more likely to belong to churches, their donations are entered as tax-deductable charity...  Look at those preachers who use religion as a marketing tool while showing off their special divinity by means of diamond bracelets, necklace, ...  Do you call this charity? !!!!

All the acts of charity extended by people to others are not tax-deductable, and therefore not registered under the official label of "charity" on IRS forms, and by extension, not mentioned in the NYT article.  

This leads us to a very important question:  What is "Charity" exactly?

lydiem

Oklahomans take pride in leading the country in so-called "charities"... and yet, the latest report on poverty published by the United Nations shows that Oklahoma is a state with one of the highest rate of poverty in the United State (and that the United States has the highest rate of poverty in the industrialized world, BTW).  So, why is it the highest rate of charity led by Oklahoma does not alleviate the highest rate of poverty in the same state of Oklahoma?  Where do all the charity donations go?

guido911

quote:
Originally posted by lydiem

We pay taxes for social and public services that should not be financed by charities.  But, for the past eight years tax money has been used to finance 'war-fare' instead of 'well-fare' ...  strange conservative priorities!!!

Second, "charity" is a generic label that include so-called "non-profit" religious organizations, otherwise called "churches" and "mega-churches"...  And since conservatives are more likely to belong to churches, their donations are entered as tax-deductable charity...  Look at those preachers who use religion as a marketing tool while showing off their special divinity by means of diamond bracelets, necklace, ...  Do you call this charity? !!!!

All the acts of charity extended by people to others are not tax-deductable, and therefore not registered under the official label of "charity" on IRS forms, and by extension, not mentioned in the NYT article.  

This leads us to a very important question:  What is "Charity" exactly?



The Newbie has a great point. Those that give to charity, stop giving!
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.