Liberals--Great Spenders of Other People's Money

[guido911]

The NYT points out what most of us already knew: Democrats charitable giving far less that Rethugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1

[RecycleMichael]

He also says that gay people give more to charity than straight people.

Your thread headline is misleading. President Bush grew government and debt greater than any President in history.

Why don't you be honest and say conservatives just spend money they don't have?

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

The NYT points out what most of us already knew: Democrats charitable giving far less that Rethugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1

Funny.  I see someone report this every year.  Old news.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

He also says that gay people give more to charity than straight people.

Your thread headline is misleading. President Bush grew government and debt greater than any President in history.

Why don't you be honest and say conservatives just spend money they don't have?

Bush is far from conservative.  Perhaps in name only, but not in action.

[RecycleMichael]

Ok. How about President Reagan and the first President Bush?

Together these three Presidents are responsible for almost 92% of the national debt.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

He also says that gay people give more to charity than straight people.

Your thread headline is misleading. President Bush grew government and debt greater than any President in history.

Why don't you be honest and say conservatives just spend money they don't have?

Good grief RM. Whine much?  Anyway, I did not write this article, the neo-con NYT did. Complain to them.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

The NYT points out what most of us already knew: Democrats charitable giving far less that Rethugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1

Oklahomans give more and volunteer more than people in most other states. And have some of the lowest over all tax burdens of any state. So we should be the shining example of what personal giving and volunteering could do to better society. Yet we still have some of the highest rates of hunger, poverty, child neglect and abuse, homelessness, drug abuse, etc. etc. etc. etc.  

You can "give" in many ways. Some believe that its people gathering together and choosing to do things through gov. Some believe its people gathering together and choosing to do things through their churches. Some believe its people gathering together and choosing to do things through charities. etc. or some different balances of those things.

Sometimes those who choose or rely on one way, may see fallacies in a different way. But I have noticed waste, corruption, etc. in all situations. Bad/inefficient charities, bad/inefficient churches, bad/inefficient government. I do not always agree with what my church does, a charity does, the government does. They all spend my and other peoples money lol. We are not going to get rid of the different "means". But we can strive to make them better and do a better job of what we ask them to do. The "job" still has to be done one way or the other. There will always be someone else spending your money; well or poorly, efficiently or inefficiently, with any organization.

[Red Arrow]

Being single, no dependents, and no mortgage, the government has chosen my path of charitable giving to be through taxes.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Being single, no dependents, and no mortgage, the government has chosen my path of charitable giving to be through taxes.

You made those choices. The government didn't choose this path for you or force you to stay there. Buy some rental property, adopt a child and find a mate (of the opposite sex) and the government will feel your pain and give you tax deductions!

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Being single, no dependents, and no mortgage, the government has chosen my path of charitable giving to be through taxes.

You made those choices. The government didn't choose this path for you or force you to stay there. Buy some rental property, adopt a child and find a mate (of the opposite sex) and the government will feel your pain and give you tax deductions!

Yeah, what Waterboy said. Enjoy your punishment.

[Red Arrow]

Why should the tax code punish me because I chose not buy something I cannot afford, raise a child I don't want, and set myself up for an expensive divorce? (Marriage is the leading cause of divorce.) Why should the government support your choices over mine? If someone chooses to buy a house fine, don't ask me to pay for it.  If you want children, fine. Pay for them yourself. Tax on a spouse is tricky, depending on whether you both work. The "progressive" tax is the problem there.

[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...

[Michael71]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Why should the tax code punish me because I chose not buy something I cannot afford, raise a child I don't want, and set myself up for an expensive divorce? (Marriage is the leading cause of divorce.) Why should the government support your choices over mine? If someone chooses to buy a house fine, don't ask me to pay for it.  If you want children, fine. Pay for them yourself. Tax on a spouse is tricky, depending on whether you both work. The "progressive" tax is the problem there.

Well said!!

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Why should the tax code punish me because I chose not buy something I cannot afford, raise a child I don't want, and set myself up for an expensive divorce? (Marriage is the leading cause of divorce.) Why should the government support your choices over mine? If someone chooses to buy a house fine, don't ask me to pay for it.  If you want children, fine. Pay for them yourself. Tax on a spouse is tricky, depending on whether you both work. The "progressive" tax is the problem there.

Hmmm, sounds exactly like what same sex couples have been saying for quite some time. Only difference is straight people have the choice to get married for the tax benefits where same sex couples do not.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Why should the tax code punish me because I chose not buy something I cannot afford, raise a child I don't want, and set myself up for an expensive divorce? (Marriage is the leading cause of divorce.) Why should the government support your choices over mine? If someone chooses to buy a house fine, don't ask me to pay for it.  If you want children, fine. Pay for them yourself. Tax on a spouse is tricky, depending on whether you both work. The "progressive" tax is the problem there.

Hmmm, sounds exactly like what same sex couples have been saying for quite some time. Only difference is straight people have the choice to get married for the tax benefits where same sex couples do not.

Well stated.