Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics and that conservatives may contribute more per person on average.

A big factor could be church contributions (I'm assuming more conservatives go to church) which may not really all be charitable if the primary intent is to fund the church you attend. And yes, I'm aware churches do other good things for the community.

Another problem could be how the data is really analyzed. The Brooks report that's widely cited looked at taxes by voting at the state level. There's a huge amount of potential variation here and if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed.

But Jim thinks it's settled science so I guess we should just move on.

-spence

The data has not been "adjusted" for those things, but the definitive study on the subject (called "Who Really Cares") indicates that liberals give less, despite the fact thet liberals earn more. And that makes sense, if you consider that liberalism is huge on both coasts, and the conservative strongholds include middle America and some rural places.

Why would you adjust the data for race? Are you saying skin color is correlated with generosity? Boy, that'll go over well in liberal circles...

"Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics."

(1) I'm sure that's true, given the liberal slant of your worldview, and your inability to accept that which makes conservatives look decent. When you get your data from The Daily Worker and The Huffington Post, you won't see articles suggesting that conservatives donate more...

(2) even if the same percentages donate, who donates more? Isn't that relevent?

(3) given that liberals are constantly suggesting that they care more about the poor than conservatives do, how is it that your studies do not show that a higher percentage of liberals donate to charity?

"A big factor could be church contributions...which may not really all be charitable"

Spence, I am shocked, yes shocked to hear you speculate (with no supporting data whatsoever) a theory which makes the conservatives look less generous.

"if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed."

Could be, could be, could be, could be...It "could be" that all conservatives are devil-worshipping cannibals. After all, I can't prove otherwise...

ILMAO

Spence, I never said "let's move on". What I have said is this...given the available data, it is preposterous for liberals to claim they care more about poor people than conservatives do. Liberals only make such rhetorical, inflammatory statements, when they know thay cannot debate the merits of whatever conversation is taking place. It's a conversation-stopper, like accusing someone of racism...

COnservatives could just as easily (more easily, given the data) claim that liberals don't care about poor people. But that's not one of the pillars of conservatism, whereas you can't watch MSNBC for 3 minutes without some liberal jerk claiming that liberals have a monopoly on caring about the poor.

I'm sorry your side keeps behaving so horribly, but don't make up for it by putting stupid words in my mouth.

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

Harry Reid should come forward with his accusations....anyone of us cn make an accusation of anyone here....who should have to prove it... the attacker or attackee?

Reid is using basically the same tactic that got obama elected to the Illinois senate in 2004

Jim, your right, I shouldn't have included race.

RI - Good thing it wasn't Theresa Heinz w/the horse.

I'd be curious if they ever did a study on Money Donated versus Time Donated....some people don't donate funds but put many hours in on Charities.

Just curious if that gets taken into consideration.

Or like my wife who earned 3-4X less than she easily could because she was dedicated to helping families with autistic kids most of whom were dirt poor?

-spence

This isn't rocket science.

Democrats typically place more value on the ability of government to bring strength of the collective. This may be as simple as belief in Federal college loans and grants to help educate our children to build a strong economy.

Yes, there are a lot of moving parts when you really analyze it, but some assertion you can't prove doesn't invalidate it.

-spence

Or Kennedy and Roosevelt and so on.

Did having money interfere with their election or Presidency? I don't think so as
we were united as Americans.
This $$ thing is just another perpetrated divider between rich and poor.
This administration has highly perfected the game of division.
They are dividers not uniters and imho we need to bring this country together
if we will ever be able to solve our mega problems.

You mean like Cheney who claimed that Obama might bring about another attack?

There's plenty of division on both sides, but look to the late 1990s House for some inspiration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was certainly a fair amount of critical comments regarding Geithner's taxes when it came up from people from both sides of the fence. The issue with Mitt is that people would like to know what tax advantages, especially off shore tax havens, he took advantage of. If he is legit it is not a problem being wealthy
Ike Kerry. It is ironic to me that Mitt"s father was the candidate who initiated multiple year tax disclosure and he is turning this into a bigger issue than it should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably less than the cost to treat Anne Romney's MS for which the horse is used to help with the disease. The Romney's donated about $20,000 to the U.S. Equestrian Team Foundation.

Do you need to see Romney's tax return to find out how much it costs to maintain and train a dressage horse?

Why am I getting the vibe that the Obama team is turning this into an issue, not Romney?

Whatever.

I am very familiar with MS in my family... no one was prescribed 'Dressage' as a treatment.....


So you get pissed at what the gov't take from you, but not if the top 1% get to skirt the same taxes by moving money offshore, or taking 'losses'?

Are you sure he didn't inherit his wealth? He certainly made a lot more for himself, no denying that.... but he didn't start out dirt poor, or even middle class.....
To paraphrase that awful Trump Roast on Comedy central... "after college he put his nose to the grindstone, worked hard, and borrowed (inherited) X Millions from his father...."

That was his opinion, not starting a class warfare.
Remember how Obama pledged to bring us all together, it was a big
part of all his other failed campaighn promises.

Bull$hit...It was part of a calculated effort to paint Democrats as weak by personally exploiting 9/11.

Class warfare has been around and will be around forever.

-spence

It's a shame he's been such a pussy with Al Queda.....

That's a great point, but let me say 2things...

(1) liberals had more money than conservatives, which makes perfect sense, when you consider the liberal strongholds like Hollywood and Manhattan...

(2) the "who really cares" study did not, I don't think, look at time donated. But they did look at who donates more blood, and it was conservatives.

But you raise a valid point, not everyone has extra cash...

A fair question...I would not release any additional tax returns, because even if they show he paid taxes, liberals will use his income as a club against him. They did it to McCain, and they've been doing it to Romney all along.

It's OK for Brad Pitt to be rich, but not Mitt Romney. Try telling me liberals don't feel that way...

Romney cannot win in this arena, so he should just say "the IRS has never come aftre me, unlike Tim Geithner, so I'm clean. My income is no one's business, all you nee dto know is I obeyed all laws, and I donated a hell of a lot more to charity than that cheapskate Joe Biden".

I can prove that liberals think that conservatives don't care about the poor (they say that all the time). And I can prove that theory is bullsh*t. That's all I was trying to prove, and it's easy to prove. Everything else you say is a pathetic attempt to cloud that reality.

Right, and it's being perpetrated by Obama and Biden, 2 guys who are rich. Did I miss something? When Obama vacations at the Vineyard, does he stay at a campground or a youth hostel?

Where does he get off implying he's not wealthy, and how gullable are the liberals who jump on board?

The easiest thing in politics is to tell a bunch of disgruntled idiots that nothing bad that heppens is "their own" fault. Rather, they got screwed by that "other" guy. And if you can paint that "other" guy as rich and white, so much the better.

ONE PERSONS WEALTH DOES NOT CAUSE ANOTHER PERSONS POVERTY.

To believe in liberal economics, you must disagree with that statement.

A mental disorder.

I have always given him high marks in that area. It's also worth noting that in this area, most of what he has done us continue the policies of the previous administration (Gitmo is open, war tribunals still happen, drone attack sstill happen, the Patriot Act is still in place). These are all things Bush got attacked for, now Obama is happily using them to score political points with folks like you. Ironic, isn't it?

Of what money he actually borrowed, which was not millions, did he pay it back? What he actually inherited from his father's will he donated to Brigham Young U. He was already rich by then, and didn't need the money. But he did put that inheritance to a good use to help others. His father helped with college expenses and buying his first house. I have helped my son with a great deal of his college expenses as well as catholic school expenses including a select high school, which were not cheap. So do most middle class, and even some poorer, families.

I notice you like to take some of your political opinions from comedy shows. I guess that's OK, for entertainment. Just sayin.

Spence isn't saying that horseback riding doesn't help her MS...what Spence is saying, because Obama has told him to say it, is that the horseback riding makes Romney one of "them".

The rich.

The enemy.

The one that has caused all of our problems.

The one who isn't paying his fair share (as if the millions he pays in taxes, and the millions he gives to charity, and the jobs he creates, are not enough!)

This, from the Obama who said he, and only he, could descend from the heavens and unite us all. Now it's "us" versus "them".

The irony is that the folks that Obama is attacking (rich businessmen, for the most part), are the ones who do so much for the rest of us. They lower the tax burden for the rest of us, they pay taxes for things like public schools that they will never use, they give big $$ to charity, and they create jobs. Those bastards!

To believe Obama, one must be willing to believe that if we could just tweak! tax rates, just a bit, on the billionaires, that all of our problems would be solved. That's ridiculous, just like just about everything else on the liberal ideological platform.

I saw Obama last night talking about CEO pay compared to the middle class. Waah, waah, waah. Does Obama think that Steven Spielberg's butler makes as much money as Spielberg does? How about Barbara Streisand's gardener, how much does he make?

So if the CEO of Goldman Sachs pays entry-level bankers less than he makes, that's exploitative. When Will Smith pays his nanny less than he makes, that's something else I guess, maybe Spence can explain the difference...