:thumb: Yet they are all lumped together by many right wing conservatives who pride themselves on being religious.

 

That's a crass, obnoxious statement. Also the first interjection of politics into an otherwise interesting thread. I could spent hours discussing the endless variety of left-wing liberal socialists who can only maintain power by having the welfare mothers suckle at their teat for year after year, without any hope or desire to get off, while behind the doors they themselves horde their inherited fortunes and turn their noses up at those less fortunate. Plenty of blame to go around.

 

Those "religious" you refer to give far more money in charity than most liberals ever even hope to give, and we've started threads about that with plenty of links before.

 

Also, I am interested in the links to ANY proof about "declining" charitable donations, all I've read is that they've gone up and up and up, despite taxation for years. Particularly if you include churches.

 

What has been discussed in this thread prior to this tripe were some interesting case stories. I take it from those that there are people that will need help that can be objectively distinguished from those who abuse. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but we also don't want to avoid casting nets for fear of catching dolphins. So there have to be some welfare criterion designed to weed out abuse. How do we do that?

And most single parents you know might account for what...0.000000001% of all single parents in the U.S.?

 

Have you given thought to the idea that many single parents might not live around family or friends? Maybe they have to live in a city where they know no one in order to make enough money to survive. Maybe they moved with a husband/wife who is now an ex to another city and can not afford to move back. Maybe their neighborhood isn't the best neighborhood. It isn't always guaranteed that you can find someone trustworthy to do that important of a job for you.

I'm sure some can't, but I'd be willing that MOST can, some just don't put forth the effort.

Come on HB, people that live in a city and know no one is likely to be 0.000000001%. Even bad neighborhoods have good people in it willing to help. Lastly, nothing in life is guaranteed. Heck, you can't be guaranteed that some expensive day care will be trustworthy to do that important of a job for you.

What did people do in this country when disaster befell them personally BEFORE all of the modern welfare programs?

That's a crass, obnoxious statement. Also the first interjection of politics into an otherwise interesting thread. I could spent hours discussing the endless variety of left-wing liberal socialists who can only maintain power by having the welfare mothers suckle at their teat for year after year, without any hope or desire to get off, while behind the doors they themselves horde their inherited fortunes and turn their noses up at those less fortunate. Plenty of blame to go around.

 

Those "religious" you refer to give far more money in charity than most liberals ever even hope to give, and we've started threads about that with plenty of links before.

 

Also, I am interested in the links to ANY proof about "declining" charitable donations, all I've read is that they've gone up and up and up, despite taxation for years. Particularly if you include churches.

 

What has been discussed in this thread prior to this tripe were some interesting case stories. I take it from those that there are people that will need help that can be objectively distinguished from those who abuse. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but we also don't want to avoid casting nets for fear of catching dolphins. So there have to be some welfare criterion designed to weed out abuse. How do we do that?

Excellent post, Hearsay! You hit the nail on the head on several key points! Well done. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

What did people do in this country when disaster befell them personally BEFORE all of the modern welfare programs?

That's all been lost in the haze of all of the entitlement programs and attitudes these days, sadly.

:thumb: Yet they are all lumped together by many right wing conservatives who pride themselves on being religious.

 

True. Oxymoronic, isn't it?

Lets break this down for a minute.

 

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

 

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

 

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

 

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

 

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

 

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

 

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

 

Link

 

So much for your theory about big bad evil religious right wing conservatives, guys.

 

 

What was the title of this thread?

hb20 simply stated in his post that many right-wingers, particularly those whose espouse religious beliefs, like to lump all welfare recipients into the sorry and lazy category. I think that is pretty accurate.

Rockmom, thank your for sharing your personal stories. I have one word that comes to mind when I think about it - brave. :thumb:

hb20 simply stated in his post that many right-wingers, particularly those whose espouse religious beliefs, like to lump all welfare recipients into the sorry and lazy category. I think that is pretty accurate.

I think it’s an incredibly myopic view from both of you.

Rockmom, thank your for sharing your personal stories. I have one word that comes to mind when I think about it - brave. :thumb:

 

:thumb:

Yes, very moving and most poignant.

Rockmom, thank your for sharing your personal stories. I have one word that comes to mind when I think about it - brave. :thumb:

Rockmom and I disagree on politics and a few other things, but I have to say that she is an incredible woman that has worked hard and done an excellent job as a mother, I'm proud to say I know her (even if I don't know her as well as others on here). :thumb:

That's a crass, obnoxious statement. Also the first interjection of politics into an otherwise interesting thread. I could spent hours discussing the endless variety of left-wing liberal socialists who can only maintain power by having the welfare mothers suckle at their teat for year after year, without any hope or desire to get off, while behind the doors they themselves horde their inherited fortunes and turn their noses up at those less fortunate. Plenty of blame to go around.

 

Those "religious" you refer to give far more money in charity than most liberals ever even hope to give, and we've started threads about that with plenty of links before.

 

Also, I am interested in the links to ANY proof about "declining" charitable donations, all I've read is that they've gone up and up and up, despite taxation for years. Particularly if you include churches.

 

What has been discussed in this thread prior to this tripe were some interesting case stories. I take it from those that there are people that will need help that can be objectively distinguished from those who abuse. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but we also don't want to avoid casting nets for fear of catching dolphins. So there have to be some welfare criterion designed to weed out abuse. How do we do that?

 

The decline in charitable contributions is apparent if you remove the sharp increases in giving that coincide with disasters.

 

Charitable giving trends in the United States

 

U.S. charitable giving reached a new record in 2006—an estimated $295.02 billion—but gifts by individuals accounted for 75 percent of the pie, according to Giving USA 2007, the yearbook of philanthropy published by Giving USA Foundation, and researched and written by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. (The 2007 report is the latest available from Giving USA, which is based in Glenview, Ill.)

 

Donors gave an estimated $11.97 billion more than in 2005, a 4.2 percent increase (1.0 percent adjusted for inflation) over a revised estimate for 2005 of $283.05 billion. The 2005 estimate includes nearly $7.4 billion in extraordinary disaster relief giving. If disaster gifts are excluded from the 2005 total, giving in 2006 rose 6.6 percent (3.2 percent after adjusting for inflation).

 

"It is impressive that giving continued to rise in 2006, especially following the unprecedented levels of disaster giving in 2005," notes Richard T. Jolly, chair of Giving USA Foundation. "America's 1.4 million charitable and religious organizations provide a huge range of services that improve lives, from meeting immediate needs to funding medical research or creating endowments to assure the future of arts or educational institutions."

 

The record-setting gift amount includes $1.9 billion that Warren Buffett paid in 2006 as the first installment on his 20-year pledge of more than $30 billion to four foundations, and also includes donations from hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans, as well as gifts from charitable bequests, foundations, and corporations.

 

"While headlines focus on 'mega-gifts,' they represented 1.3 percent of the total," notes George C. Ruotolo Jr., CFRE, chair of Giving Institute: Leading Consultants to Non-Profits, parent organization of the Foundation. "About 65 percent of households with incomes lower than $100,000 give to charity. That's higher than the percentage who vote or read a Sunday newspaper."

 

Giving by individuals is always the largest single source of donations, according to the report. Individual donations rose by 4.4 percent (1.2 percent adjusted for inflation) to an estimated $222.89 billion, and account for 75.6 percent of all estimated giving in 2006.

 

Charitable bequests are estimated in 2006 to be $22.91 billion, a 2.1 percent drop (-5.1 percent adjusted for inflation) from the revised value for 2005, which is based on IRS records and is now $23.40 billion. New IRS information about 2005 shows a large change in giving by the wealthiest estates. Charitable bequests in 2006 are 7.8 percent of the estimated total.

 

Foundation grant making, as recorded by the Foundation Center and reported in Giving USA, rose 12.6 percent (9.1 percent adjusted for inflation) to $36.5 billion. The increase was because of growth in the number of foundations and because the stock market rose rapidly in 2006. Foundations make grants based in part on the value of their assets, and when asset values rise quickly, grant making increases. Foundation giving accounts for 12.4 percent of total estimated charitable donations in 2006.

 

Donations by corporations and corporate foundations are estimated to be $12.72 billion in 2006. This is a decline of 7.6 percent (-10.5 percent adjusted for inflation). The decline reflects the extraordinary gifts in 2005 for disaster relief, as well as a slowdown in the rate of growth for non-disaster-related corporate giving. Without the 2005 disaster relief gifts included, corporate giving is estimated to have increased 1.5 percent in 2006 (a drop of 1.7 percent when adjusted for inflation).

That's a crass, obnoxious statement. Also the first interjection of politics into an otherwise interesting thread. I could spent hours discussing the endless variety of left-wing liberal socialists who can only maintain power by having the welfare mothers suckle at their teat for year after year, without any hope or desire to get off, while behind the doors they themselves horde their inherited fortunes and turn their noses up at those less fortunate. Plenty of blame to go around.

 

Those "religious" you refer to give far more money in charity than most liberals ever even hope to give, and we've started threads about that with plenty of links before.

 

Also, I am interested in the links to ANY proof about "declining" charitable donations, all I've read is that they've gone up and up and up, despite taxation for years. Particularly if you include churches.

 

What has been discussed in this thread prior to this tripe were some interesting case stories. I take it from those that there are people that will need help that can be objectively distinguished from those who abuse. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but we also don't want to avoid casting nets for fear of catching dolphins. So there have to be some welfare criterion designed to weed out abuse. How do we do that?

 

I never claimed that liberals do more than conservatives. Not once did I even hint at that. I claimed that many right wingers lump all poor people together in one boat. Mainly I was talking about opinions that I have seen on this website in particular. Many conservatives on this site seem to think that all people on welfare are simply receiving hand outs. They seem to believe that most people on welfare are just lazy and that they are taking advantage of the government. I am sorry that I do not feel that way.

I have read there is a lack of compassion in this country and there is a need for more government spending. Just how much would be enough? If a person is homeless, going hungruy, or is without medical care, then they have chosen not use to use the vast number of programs private or public. There are drop in centers all over the country, food availiable through many government or private oranganizations and hospitals cannot turn anyone away. Once again, how much is enough?

Lets break this down for a minute.

 

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

 

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

 

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

 

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

 

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

 

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

 

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

 

Link

 

So much for your theory about big bad evil religious right wing conservatives, guys.

 

 

What was the title of this thread?

 

 

Arthur Brooks' book, Who Really Cares, is of course finding quite a bit of use as yet another rhetorical bludgeon to use against liberals. Conservatives give more to "the poor" than the hypocritical liberals who always preach against the wealth of the GOP.

 

...

 

We must also remember that Brooks is tracking charitable giving. This helps his cause, since one of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is their relative willingness to use governmental programs to help society. This is shown by the universal healthcare plans already put in place by Massachussetts, Oregon and San Francisco, and Schwarzenegger's proposal for a statewide plan in California. Of course Medicaid is a liberal program, as are breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, WIC, and the multitude of other programs that had conservative opposition at their beginning and suffer continual attacks on their existence. These programs are usually funded better in "blue" states than in "red" states - for example, the complete breakdown of the social safety net in Texas is well-documented, even if it wasn't well-publicized in the 2000 election.

 

Then there is the troubling fact that red states are federal tax donors, while blue states are federal tax recipients. Some of this is offset by the larger number of military installations in the Western red states. For example, New Mexico is chock-full of land given over to one or another branch of the military, NASA and various other governmental organizations. However, we must not discount how Medicare and Social Security, those great liberal programs, figure into these numbers. Also, when state programs are subsidized by federal dollars, the money is coming from liberals in their blue states.

 

I would be willing to call it a draw, to admit that the differing worldviews of liberals and conservatives just propel us to different strategies, and that someone like Arthur Brooks probably just doesn't even comprehend that liberals give charitably through governmental programs.

 

LINK