Liberals and Romney's taxes

[PaulS]

Justplugit - those are all great acts of charity. My church also does some things I'm proud off to support the sick and less fortunate in my community.

My statement just refers to the fact that my donation to fufill my building fund pledge is treated no different that a donation I might make to the church to help fund our monthly meal at the local shelter. The only difference is that Lhea the church sec. applies the money to my building fund pledge - the IRS doesn't treat it differently. You and Jim aren't going to be able to use the gym or weight room while to some degree you helped build it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Justplugit - those are all great acts of charity. My church also does some things I'm proud off to support the sick and less fortunate in my community.

My statement just refers to the fact that my donation to fufill my building fund pledge is treated no different that a donation I might make to the church to help fund our monthly meal at the local shelter. The only difference is that Lhea the church sec. applies the money to my building fund pledge - the IRS doesn't treat it differently. You and Jim aren't going to be able to use the gym or weight room while to some degree you helped build it.

I hear you, and I don't disagree that there is a difference between donations used to feed the hungry, and donations used to build a sauna in your church's gym. But I don't think it's a huge deal, and I'd bet everything I have, that what yuo describe is not the reason consrevatives donate more than liberals. You implied that "self-serving" donations might be the reason that conservatives seem to give more, yet you offered no evidence other than to say that there is such a thing as a self-serving donation. That doesn't negate the studies that show that conservatives dobnate more.

It has also been shown that a larger percentage of charity dollars get to those that need it, rather than gubmint dollars. Governemnt programs are almost always inefficient, and often corrupt. That's a big reason why conservatives want to emphasize more charitable giving, and less government spending. For that, we get accused of not caring about poor people. It's ridiculous.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That doesn't negate the studies that show that conservatives dobnate more.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

-spence

"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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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 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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't rocket science.

Yes, rocket science has to operate under certain laws and certainties established over time and through testing and experience, and their effect on the natural world. Politics as practiced today, especially progressive politics, is quite different. Established laws based on human nature as observed, tested, and experienced over time are discarded for untried theories, wishes, and whims.

Democrats typically place more value on the ability of government to bring strength of the collective.

Yes, given the record of time and experience, history is replete with examples of the collective strength backed by government as an oppressive power against individual freedom, and a sapping of individual strength

This may be as simple as belief in Federal college loans and grants to help educate our children to build a strong economy.

History and experience has shown that Federal college loans have fueled the rise in their price. And that collectivism over individualism eventually tends to create stagnating economies with bloated governments that weaken economies rather than building vibrant ones.

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

Whatever.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

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...