Who gives more to charity ? -- Liberals or Conservatives ? (Page 3): Such as?

PeterS

Tasine wrote:

I've never met a Christian conservative who h**es the poor. I think what they DO h**e are policies the government puts into place that assure the poor will remain poor. I question the honestly of all those who support such cruel policies.

Such as?

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

PeterS wrote:

Such as?

Let's take welfare. For too long and possibly still welfare was not stopped after any specificity of time; ergo, if people could make it on welfare, why look for work? Particularly if one had never prepared himself for a lifetime of looking after himself. Ergo, detriment to becoming independent. Too many women decided to have baby after baby because the government increased the welfare check and perks with each baby..... why work? And why track down a wayward and irresponsible father when daddy government picked up the expense of the baby(ies)? Hence government made dependency AND irresponsibility preferable to work AND politically correct. Some people do need a helping hand temporarily, but there are a very few who need it forever. However, EVERY government handout program where help without ANY responsibility required of the recipient, spells s***ery of an oppressive government. It also spells a lost life that may have had the capacity to do good things had the person been encouraged and helped to work for a living. Even C*******t Russia does it better than we do. I don't know what their current policies are, but a Russian escapee was my professor years ago. He said Russia DOES have a welfare program, but everyone who is physically capable of doing any kind of work HAD to work at what was available.......some were assigned to sweep sidewalks downtown. Some were assigned to wash store front windows. Some were assigned lawn work. Those who not capable of much physical work, babysat hallways in hotels, tending to wh**ever someone needed, etc.......they may have sat there all night without doing a darned thing, but they "earned" their "pay" because they reported for assignment.

Unfettered welfare is ONE horrendously damaging program that does nothing but grow until everything is sucked from everyone who does work; then the welfare rolls grow some more. It is a lousy program that steals p***e of self, p***e of accomplishment from too many of our too young citizens who should have jobs, NOT welfare. Unfettered welfare is without a doubt THE worst program - for EVERYONE - that our country has ever experimented with.

Give me five employees for 2 years, and I will have at least 2 of them in college by the end of the second year, by choice, and paying his own way as much as he is capable of doing. One doesn't grow responsible a responsible and independent person by throwing money at him, but of building him up so that he has the nerve and confidence to believe he can make it on his own. Then mentor him along the way........he has a good chance of being better than good.....he has a good chance of being extraordinary.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Steve700 wrote:

One of the continued debates surrounding charitable giving centers upon whether liberals or conservatives donate more to charity and its a question that one expert wasted no time answering while speaking recently about the current state of philanthropy in America.

Theres no question that conservatives give more to charity, Rick Dunham, said president and CEO of Dunham+Company. The research objectively demonstrates that conservatives tend to be more religious and therefore they give more to charity.

In addition to these claims, which are consistent with some of the past research highlighted on the subject, Dunham, whose company assists with brand strategy and fundraising, was sure to note that its not as though non-believers dont have a culture of giving.

While some non-theists are charitable, he explained that individuals who attend religious services donate six times more than those who dont, as giving is more of a lifestyle for them.

Dunham also defended churches against atheists and other who claim that houses of worship are not institutions that should be included when assessing charitable giving, noting that faith has traditionally held an important role when it comes to the moral fiber of our culture.

I think its a straw man argument that individuals put up that giving to churches is not really charitable giving, Dunham said. Whats kind of glossed over is the moral education, the moral inout of faith into life which again goes to one of the strands of our DNA as a country.

As for the holiday season, Dunham said that the giving outlook is pretty good. He added that hes been watching the stock market following the midterm e******ns, as the it is the single most important indicator of charitable giving in America.

He also noted that the general economy is a strong indicator, explaining that the great recession yielded a historical dip in giving one that hit the charitable sector hard. But with the economy improving, he said giving is also on the upswing.

Regardless of the specifics and the debate over who gives more, Dunham said that one thing is clear: charitable giving is ingrained in Americans DNA, especially when comparing it to other countries.

Many countries have a culture that is dependent on government and, as a result, they feel they pay taxes and government should take care of it, he said. And as a result charitable center is a lot smaller than in America.

One of the continued debates surrounding charitabl... (show quote)

The only time a liberal (DEMOCRAP) is "charitable", is when it is anyone else's money and not their own. DEMOCRAPS love finding a way to take YOUR money and give it away to anyone and everyone else....DEMOCRAPS are the KING of making people dependent on someone else.

Conservatives have a "get up and work for it" approach and this with success they can select without being forced to do so by any government enforcement, to pick and choose whom to help and how much to do so.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

PeterS wrote:

Such as?

CORNHOLE-IEO ALERT! Resident of the planet UranuS PeterS is posting again.....

melbell Loc: California / Kentucky

Tasine wrote:

Let's take welfare. For too long and possibly still welfare was not stopped after any specificity of time; ergo, if people could make it on welfare, why look for work? Particularly if one had never prepared himself for a lifetime of looking after himself. Ergo, detriment to becoming independent. Too many women decided to have baby after baby because the government increased the welfare check and perks with each baby..... why work? And why track down a wayward and irresponsible father when daddy government picked up the expense of the baby(ies)? Hence government made dependency AND irresponsibility preferable to work AND politically correct. Some people do need a helping hand temporarily, but there are a very few who need it forever. However, EVERY government handout program where help without ANY responsibility required of the recipient, spells s***ery of an oppressive government. It also spells a lost life that may have had the capacity to do good things had the person been encouraged and helped to work for a living. Even C*******t Russia does it better than we do. I don't know what their current policies are, but a Russian escapee was my professor years ago. He said Russia DOES have a welfare program, but everyone who is physically capable of doing any kind of work HAD to work at what was available.......some were assigned to sweep sidewalks downtown. Some were assigned to wash store front windows. Some were assigned lawn work. Those who not capable of much physical work, babysat hallways in hotels, tending to wh**ever someone needed, etc.......they may have sat there all night without doing a darned thing, but they "earned" their "pay" because they reported for assignment.

Unfettered welfare is ONE horrendously damaging program that does nothing but grow until everything is sucked from everyone who does work; then the welfare rolls grow some more. It is a lousy program that steals p***e of self, p***e of accomplishment from too many of our too young citizens who should have jobs, NOT welfare. Unfettered welfare is without a doubt THE worst program - for EVERYONE - that our country has ever experimented with.

Give me five employees for 2 years, and I will have at least 2 of them in college by the end of the second year, by choice, and paying his own way as much as he is capable of doing. One doesn't grow responsible a responsible and independent person by throwing money at him, but of building him up so that he has the nerve and confidence to believe he can make it on his own. Then mentor him along the way........he has a good chance of being better than good.....he has a good chance of being extraordinary.

Let's take welfare. For too long and possibly sti... (show quote)

Awesome, that you knew someone from Russia to share that with you. I never knew how their social programs were engineered or implemented. My first glimpse at Russia's welfare or social engineering so to speak.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

melbell wrote:

Awesome, that you knew someone from Russia to share that with you. I never knew how their social programs were engineered or implemented. My first glimpse at Russia's welfare or social engineering so to speak.

A more interesting person I have never met. I racked up quite a few economics credits in college, and he was the best prof I ever had.

melbell Loc: California / Kentucky

Tasine wrote:

A more interesting person I have never met. I racked up quite a few economics credits in college, and he was the best prof I ever had.

It truly is sad day for America when c*******t Russia has better implementation of social programs.
How is it even possible the question let alone the affirmation.

melbell Loc: California / Kentucky

Tasine wrote:

A more interesting person I have never met. I racked up quite a few economics credits in college, and he was the best prof I ever had.

Did he by chance, espouse to a system of economics? Or did he just teach both and make everyone regurgitate information and theory?

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

melbell wrote:

Did he by chance, espouse to a system of economics? Or did he just teach both and make everyone regurgitate information and theory?

Omg! He was a STRONG CAPITALIST.

melbell Loc: California / Kentucky

Tasine wrote:

Omg! He was a STRONG CAPITALIST.

This brings me great JOY!

funguy1949

America Only wrote:

The only time a liberal (DEMOCRAP) is "charit... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 100% correct

funguy1949

Tasine wrote:

Let's take welfare. For too long and possibly still welfare was not stopped after any specificity of time; ergo, if people could make it on welfare, why look for work? Particularly if one had never prepared himself for a lifetime of looking after himself. Ergo, detriment to becoming independent. Too many women decided to have baby after baby because the government increased the welfare check and perks with each baby..... why work? And why track down a wayward and irresponsible father when daddy government picked up the expense of the baby(ies)? Hence government made dependency AND irresponsibility preferable to work AND politically correct. Some people do need a helping hand temporarily, but there are a very few who need it forever. However, EVERY government handout program where help without ANY responsibility required of the recipient, spells s***ery of an oppressive government. It also spells a lost life that may have had the capacity to do good things had the person been encouraged and helped to work for a living. Even C*******t Russia does it better than we do. I don't know what their current policies are, but a Russian escapee was my professor years ago. He said Russia DOES have a welfare program, but everyone who is physically capable of doing any kind of work HAD to work at what was available.......some were assigned to sweep sidewalks downtown. Some were assigned to wash store front windows. Some were assigned lawn work. Those who not capable of much physical work, babysat hallways in hotels, tending to wh**ever someone needed, etc.......they may have sat there all night without doing a darned thing, but they "earned" their "pay" because they reported for assignment.

Unfettered welfare is ONE horrendously damaging program that does nothing but grow until everything is sucked from everyone who does work; then the welfare rolls grow some more. It is a lousy program that steals p***e of self, p***e of accomplishment from too many of our too young citizens who should have jobs, NOT welfare. Unfettered welfare is without a doubt THE worst program - for EVERYONE - that our country has ever experimented with.

Give me five employees for 2 years, and I will have at least 2 of them in college by the end of the second year, by choice, and paying his own way as much as he is capable of doing. One doesn't grow responsible a responsible and independent person by throwing money at him, but of building him up so that he has the nerve and confidence to believe he can make it on his own. Then mentor him along the way........he has a good chance of being better than good.....he has a good chance of being extraordinary.

Let's take welfare. For too long and possibly sti... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: yes/yes that would be the ticket out of welfare but we are dealing with Russia and the way I see it they made the one's who could work for their welfare ,here in the states,it would never happen why if it did then the demwitts would lose their meal ticket"v**es",but on the other hand if the conservative did this their would only be demwits in power all the time so it has come to a stall mate. My suggestion would be revamp the welfare program & start weeding out the leach's an send them to jail for froudulante clams . An make each female that pops out a baby every other year should undergo surgery after her first born child if they want welfare.An all those daddy's who disapear should be tracked down and made to pay welfare back. On forced work details.That'll keep their pants zipped up.
am I being to Harsch on welfare case's here who are nothing but leach's who feed off the hard working, tax paying citizens.
I for one don't think so,an to weed out the druggy's a manditory drug test must be done before each person receives there monthly check minus the cost of the test. If we have to have welfare then put things back to the way it was set up for those who could not work.period.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

funguy1949 wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumb... (show quote)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absolutely YES re drug testing. And, yes, the cost of it comes out of the pockets of the recipients of the welfare check.

PeterS

Tasine wrote:

Let's take welfare. For too long and possibly stil... (show quote)

You discount the fact that nearly everyone desires a reasonable quality of life. Some do settle for poverty but the majority don't, at least not willingly. Millions go on and off some form of government assistance every year which is why I don't buy your argument that government assistance causes dependency. If that were true people would stay on when they could instead of getting off as soon as they get a job. The Urban Institute cited the number one reason people go on an off welfare is because they lack the sk**ls needed get and hold a steady job and the fact that the jobs they can get pay no better than poverty wages.

This isn't the 50's, 60's, or 70's where one could be a clerk and earn a living wage. My mother only had a 9th grade education but still had the sk**ls required to land a job that paid enough for her to raise 5 children without any assistance, with the exception that I received a Pell grant in College. What's turned people into s***es is the multitude of jobs that pay only minimum wage! There was a time when GM was the largest employer and you could earn a wage that placed you solidly in the middle class. Today Walmart is the largest employer and they pay a wage that keeps pace with poverty.

Our society has changed. Our first washing machine was a used Maytag we bought in college that lasted all the way through our children and gave up in about 2004. This included me dropping it down two flights of stairs on one of our moves. Since that washing machine we are now on our third, two of which were Maytag's but no more. You can't make that drastic of a turn in the quality of everything from the wages we pay to the products we consume and then think people won't require more assistance from government. Yes some things are cheaper but we will have to buy 7 to equal one of what we would have bought in the 70's.

Demagoguery of those who lack sk**ls to get jobs does no good when the programs to give people the sk**ls they need to earn a decant living in this country are disappearing faster then the population who need them is growing. I went to school in the 70's on Pell grants, work study, and a seasonal part time job earning enough to get my bachelors degree and I paid for my masters degree by working as a teaching assistant. Today a Pell grant, even a full one, won't be large enough to pay for tuition at a state university. We can't destroy both the wages and the programs that help people get out of poverty and then wonder why people are stuck in poverty.

Yes people don't prepare themselves for life but to make people pay for the mistakes they make when an i***t teenager does nothing to help people get out of poverty when they are grown.

Quote:

Give me five employees for 2 years, and I will hav... (show quote)

Give you? So take them. They are there by the millions!

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

PeterS wrote:

Give you? So take them. They are there by the millions!

I have already done that. I'm 76 years old and retired, but when I worked, I did help people get into college, they succeeded, and are doing quite well. I didn't buy them, I didn't force them, I merely told them their actual worth, treated them with respect, and assured them a job when they finished school if they wanted the job.

There comes a time when others have to take the reins and do what is needed. I think America has run out of doers and helpers. Today's Americans are more obsessed with "having things" than in doing anything for their fellow man. We are dying off and there seems to be no one interested in taking over where we had to leave off due to age and infirmities. Today's Americans are "so busy" that they will cheerfully give up birthright freedoms in order to not have to be inconvenienced by helping others. They prefer the government hand out help..........they are too stupid to understand that government HELPS no one. Fortunately for the nation, not every American sees life as you do. Unfortunately, enough DO see life as you do that they will willy nilly give up freedoms to prevent having to deal with those less fortunate - and my nation dies in the process.