McCain/Palin give money to charity, Obama/Biden give YOUR money to charity

"They are excellet at bringing us all down it seems. damn the republicans."

If Republicans are so good at bringing us all down than why are they the ones giving the most to charity? Tax dollars get given to the non-profits like ACORN who have the most political connections, not the grassroots organizations that can't afford to lobby.

Funny way of seeing things. There are different ways of running a society. There are different systems for distributing tax money. The US is great in many ways but I thank whomever for not beeing a US citizen. With the homeless, the poor, people that cannot get medical aid for their ill kids and so on and so on. Not a model society in any ways in my mind.

How do you know who gives what to charity? republicans are more than two people? There must be more than two democrats in the US too?

Do you base your voting on who gives the most to charity out of four candidates? If you are so conserned about charities and the ones thay help do you not think there are other more important factors to consider than what 4 single people contribute on their own whims?

Conservatives have always given more to charity out of their incomes than Democrats, who think it's the governments job to take care of poor people.

Giving the government my money and trusting them to do the right thing is absolutely insane. Most right thinking persons realize the government is not to be trusted.

Documentation? Links?

I agree. Noone in their right mind should trust the current US government. Mine I trust. They seem to be doing a good job at distributing our common money. Solidarity now.

Of course there are more than two republicans and two democrats. In fact, I was originally going to start a thread on how much each party gives to charity, but thought it might be a bit more interesting and relevant to see what the presidential candidates are giving, especially since one said it was patriotic to pay higher taxes.

Here are some facts to show you how I know that conservatives give more to charity.

"In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others"

Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.

The book includes a "charity map" of the United States that closely resembles the now-famous electoral map showing blue and red states. Of the 25 states that donated a portion of household income above the national average in 2001, Mr. Brooks writes, 24 gave a majority of votes to President Bush three years later."
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Don't you hate it when someone slaps you around with facts instead of opinions and hate as you've shown towards republicans?

Thanks for the link!

There are several ways to interpret info like this.

Did you slap me around with facts? Well, I stand firmly on my own two feet and do not in any way feel defeated by you. But go ahead, feel like a grand winner if that makes your day a good one. I'll not slap back. I am not one for violence. Most liberals are not.

I really did not care much for your way of describing the ones you call librals. Sarcasm, belittlement, ridicule is what comes to mind when reading your original post. I did not care much for your tone of voice. Nor did you care much for mine. Fine - I understand why.

When it comes to the question of taxes and charity I think you have taken a narrowminded approach.

Giving to charity and beeing for or against higher taxes do not necessarily have much to do with eachother. Taxes are not collected for charity. taxes are collected to redistribute wealth and to cover the expences a society think that should be covered as a joint effort. Some places people have decided they do not think people should be without a home. They may think everyone is entitled to proper healthcare, equal schooling etc etc etc. Other places people think it is better to pay as little in taxes as possible - just to keep the wheels turning for the majority of people in that society. Each to his own. And let each person decide who they want to give some of their riches to.

This kind of thinking - a good generous man giving money to someone he feels deserving of his gifts - does not appeal to me at all. I think that society should collect enough taxes to cover basic needs for all the citizens. Not as charity but because it is the decent and right way to act as civilized human beeings.

Luckily I live somewhere where we do think it is part of the governments job to assure all people have what they need. Everyone are provided for - regardless of what a rich citizen feel worthy of his time and money.

No nation has ever become great or successful by having a welfare mentality.

One thing is notably missing from your post: any sense of personal accountability or responsibility for one's own health wealth and happiness. You seem to think it is the government's job to take care of you and I guess that's fine for you but the United States was not founded on socialist principals or a welfare mentality.

"I really did not care much for your way of describing the ones you call librals. Sarcasm, belittlement, ridicule is what comes to mind when reading your original post."

Actually I have said nothing disparaging about liberals in this thread at all. I only mentioned liberals once in my original post and that was to alert them to read my facts before attacking me. Now I must wonder if you read the whole post, or just jumped to the attack. On to your statements.


"When it comes to the question of taxes and charity I think you have taken a narrowminded approach."

There's nothing narrow-minded about my topic or my points. Biden and Obama want the taxpayers to pay higher taxes to fund their programs which include mandating health care and fining parents and business that fail to provide it. As noted in tonight's debate, he still hasn't disclosed what that fine will be. Since they want wealthier Americans to pay higher taxes which will be then redistributed to others, it seems rather hypocritical that Joe Biden himself gives almost nothing to charity despite his exceptional income.

McCain on the other hand donates all the proceeds from his book sales, as well as the money he's receiving from the raises congress voted on in the 90's that he voted against.

"Giving to charity and being for or against higher taxes do not necessarily have much to do with each other. Taxes are not collected for charity. taxes are collected to redistribute wealth."

Redistribution of wealth IS charity. In this country we believe in working for what you get. People shouldn't be given money just for being a couch barnacle who waits on welfare checks.

Redistribution of wealth is also a Socialist tenet. While you may live in a socialist country, WE do not. Socialism may work well in a tiny country like Norway, which has less people than Maryland, but when your dealing with over 300 million people, 50 states, and some 30 million illegal aliens who are already a drain on our society, you have to look at different systems.

Sndcain:

naturally every one should do whatever thay can to contribute to society. Noone may receive welfare if it is not absolutely necessary. With money comes duties. Lots of duties. but with paying taxes also come some rights. Rights that keep you safe should you encounter tragedy, illness, powerty or any other hardships. Often by no fault of your own. Mylot is not a very suitable place to explain every aspect of an issue like this.

It is not the governments duty to take care of me, but out of solidarity we share our money through taxes with those less fortunate (amongst many other things taxes cover). I believe the help one needs and gets should be regulated by law rather be the subject of some charitable organization or single person. To be a charitycase feels very different from being ensured help regulated by law when in crisis

Norway is doing pretty good economically I'd say even though we do have a good welfare system.

----

I read your entire post, and this is how I reacted to it. I may have read more into your comments than what you wanted to put in them. If so I am sorry. This is however how I reacted to your post.

Well, we will never agree on this. redistribution of wealth is not charity in my mind. You are entitled to your opinion and I am to mine. Taxes is not charity in my mind. Taxes is part of an agreement between people who live together in a society. Charity is what someone out of the goodness of their heart decide to give to someone else that are deemed worthy of their help.

naturally one should not take from the rich and give to the coach potatoes. That's not how it works in Norway either by the way. We do however believe in paying taxes to ensure everyone that lives here are getting the medical treatment they need regardles of financial sitiation. That is just one example. We do work for what we get. And we do pay for what we get. Through our taxes. All the time you are working you pay money in so that you are ensured rights and pension when that is needed. We are only happy to share with those less fortunate as one never knows when one will be in need of assistance oneself.

You may very well take the position that what works here will not work with you. To say this is just due to the size of our nations - I disagree again. This is a matter of ideology and basic values.

It does not seem like your nation is doing very well financially. It does not look like you are doing that well dealing with powerty, healthcare issues and some other stuff as well. maybe it's time to explore some other ways of organizing things? It is up to you to decide. I hope for many unfortunate Americans that things will change.

No matter how many people live in a nation I think their sucess may be measured by how they treat their weakest ones. If your child gets cancer right after birth and is not covered by medical insurance I would prefere to live in a country where I do not face financial ruin if I was to get treatment for my child. This happened to my neighbour in the US when I lived there. Horrid situation. In a situation like that I would think the family would have a much better situation if they knew what help they could expect moneywise from the government. Not having to rely of uncertain charities.

I am a socialist and I am proud to be one. Solidarity, empathy, help, caring, duties and rights are things of great value to me. I think the world would be much better for everyone if there were more solidarity.
If you are wondering I think taxes should be collected from all the rich nations and redistributed to the poor nations as well. There's a reason some nationa are far more wealthy than others. There is a reason that som epeople are rich and some are oor. It does not always stem from lack of motivation and hard work by the poor. The wealth comes from somewhere, and is not always without great cost for others.

"I agree with that, I think it's pretty widely accepted that Republicans donate more money to charitable organizations than Democrats."

It's true, but from my online research it doesn't seem widely accepted. Most opponents claim that Republicans only donate to get the tax breaks. How it would be beneficial to the donor to give a dollar and receive 30 cents in tax breaks is beyond me.

I understand your concern and respect your stance on the issue. Unfortunately, you have more faith in our congress than I do. I fear that too many tax dollars are given to the non-profits with the most political connections. That could include Greenpeace, ACORN, ACLU, and American Cancer Society, but leave out local soup kitchens who get their labor, food, and space from direct donations and church contributions.

That's socialism.

So? Capitalism needs people to be starving in poverty or it fails to work. I see that as wrong. Communism controls everything, also wrong. There should be a balance between the two where we care for people because they are people. There is enough money in the world to care for everyone but most of it is in the hand of a few.

I have heard of people in the US who work 2 jobs and still cannot afford to feed their families because the wages are far too low. That is wrong and in Australia it is illegal. We are a capitalist country but we have regulation that protects people from working for starvation wages. It ensures that they have an income if they lose their job, its not much and the rules are tough but they do not starve.

The big problem with this world is that it is focused on individual greed rather than caring for the welfare of the community. That is what caused the current economic crisis.

I do not care what you call it but it is wrong for a person to be able to work full time and still starve. That is just the greed of the employer and the refusal of the government to care for the welfare of its people.

Capitalism has provided Americans with some of the highest standards of living in the world. Even our poor are immensely better off than the poor in other parts of the world.

The government cannot be trusted and should not be trusted to take care of people. If you are in any doubt, just look at what's happening right now. The economic failure was not the fault of the free market but of the government interfering in the free market and forcing banks to make bad loans to people who wouldn't pay them back.

Redyellowblackdog has a new discussion regarding FDR's economic policies and how they actually prolonged the depression. Well worth reading.

That is not the case at all. The banks were not forced to make those loans. They did it out of greed trying to find new markets and make more profits. They knew the people would default but as long as the property markets stayed high they would get the house and make a profit selling it but it backfired.

It was lack of regulation on people's greed that caused your current economic problems. You cannot trust greedy people to look after anyone. The government is the only one you can trust to care for its people and if it doesn't then you find one that will.

"That is not the case at all. The banks were not forced to make those loans. They did it out of greed trying to find new markets and make more profits."

Newsflash Sharra, banks LOSE money on foreclosed homes. That's what's causing the crisis. Do you really think greed made them want to lose money?

Do some research. President Clinton forced banks to make bad loans to people under the guise of "equal housing opportunity".

Obama sued banks in the 90s for refusing to make loans to people who were a bad risk.

It is unbelievable to me that you'd think banks would go out of their way to give money to people whom they knew couldn't pay them back as a means of making money. I don't understand your thinking at all.

Banks don't, loan sharks do. I cannot think of the name for them but these people borrow from other people who borrow from banks. This is a multi-layered system. They call themselves financiers and they will loan money to anyone with no deposit to buy cars etc on very high interest rates. The banks would never loan to these people and on their books they do not but we are talking about an entire economy built on debt. Once a system like this starts to tumble the whole house of cards come down.

I find it amazing that you manage to blame the government for everything that goes wrong and no doubt you claim credit for everything that goes right. It is careful regulation that keeps this system honest. We do not have a sub prime market but some of our banks have links to banks in America so we will get hurt a little from this crash. In fact the whole world will because of this obsession with global economies.

I believe this crash would not have occurred if you had the same sort of regulation, or government interference as you put it, as we have in Australia. If you had no government regulation at all you would be much worse off.

It is amazing that it is always the rich who complain about being taxed. The more money they make the more they complain.

I do not agree. A conservative will look at a homeless person and say its his own fault and if he works harder he will achieve the same wealth as I have but I would not give him any money that will simply be a waste. There was one young aristocrat I read about in history who actually complained that the government allowed these horrible dirty people to be on the street where she walked. They should go and starve somewhere else.

The liberal will see a homeless person and say this is wrong, we are a wealthy country, no one should be living like this. It is shameful in a country so wealthy that it refuses to look after its own people. Yes they will raise taxes so that the wealthy are forced to contribute to solving the problem of the homeless person.

I do want to point out in response to donating time to the needy: this may be completely biased, and if I'm wrong somebody please point it out to me! But when I was working in social services, almost all of my co-workers were Democrat. It may be regional, I've only ever worked in the one county, so it may be different in other areas!

I know its not the same as literally DONATING time, as we were getting paid... but I'm sure it's no secret that social workers are not at all well paid! Everyone was there because of a passion for helping people.

That said, as I said above, I would agree with the assessment that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats do.

That's why I live in an overwhelmingly democratic city and we have homeless people who are being screwed over by the city because these same people don't like the dirty homeless people littering up the streets.

You have a very idealistic idea of socialism that doesn't hold up to reality. You are also spouting off liberal propaganda against conservatives that is completely untrue.

Sooobored, I am not surprised that people working for social government programs would vote democrat. And those same social workers, despite their passion for helping people, have their hands tied by that same government.

Republicans by and large don't support socialism and feel welfare programs only create welfare mentalities.

"if I'm wrong somebody please point it out to me! But when I was working in social services, almost all of my co-workers were Democrat. It may be regional, I've only ever worked in the one county, so it may be different in other areas!"

My own experience has shown me that as well. It's odd. I have volunteered with several charities and the majority of the people I've worked with as a volunteer were conservative. In my experience as a Juvenile Detention Officer, most of the officers were democrats and most, if not all, the social workers I knew were democrats as well.

Maybe that explains why liberals don't have so much to throw around?

i do agree with that he is about your everyday people. and he can,t hurt us more then the last 8 years have

Are you just making it up as you go along, or did you hear that in a commercial? Seriously, I could throw facts at you just like I have everyone else here, but I'm starting to think people like you are proud of your ignorance and will ignore any and all facts in your eagerness to hate republicans and blame them for all your problems.

Did you miss the part about giving to charity? Charity isn't being handed to rich people. His wife runs a non-profit organization that works around the world. If you don't agree with him on the issues, that's fine, but ignoring the facts just makes you look close-minded and ignorant. McCain wants to give tax cuts to everyone. Obama wants to give tax cuts to the poor and middle class while raising taxes on others. If you prefer one philosophy over the other, that's your choice, but McCain supports tax cuts for the middle class.

With the exception of Biden, I'd say all the candidates do appear to be quite generous. I wouldn't fault Obama for giving a lower percentage than McCain, since he is still giving a fair amount. Biden just surprised me because frankly, "I" give more money to charity than he does and I make a fraction of his income.

i would have figured mccain would have given like biden though.. thats why im surprised haha

The only politician I know of whose giving was comparable to Biden was D!ck Cheney. McCain has always given a lot to charity and his wife runs a non-profit.

ah i didnt know that

I'm with you. I think communities should be able to support their own charities instead of the government taking our money and letting Obama take tax dollars from all over the country to spend on a $3 million overhead projector in his state of Illinois. How exactly is that helping the poor and struggling middle class he claims to be a hero of? I personally haven't been to a planetarium in 13 years and when I did go, it wasn't free.

If you make $30,000 you would have to give $92.00 to outdo the Biden's in their most genorous year (this year). In their worst year you'd have to give $45 to outdo them. Keep in mind, they are making over $200,000 in their worst year and over $300,000 in their best year. According to the studies I've read the working poor typically give more than that to charity. Poor people on welfare typically give nothing, but that's to be expected.

After going through all this I'm tempted to look at my tax returns to see what percentage my wife and I give. We give a lot, but we don't always get receipts so it doesn't all get reported. On average we definitely give more money, not just a bigger percent, than the Bidens, and we aren't earning 6 figures.

I'm on benefits, but always give more than $100 dollars a year. I make a donation of $10/month to this organization called Right to Play, which donates sports equipment to the developing world. That's $120 right there and doesn't count Toys for Tots, or donations from my books or anything.