Can liberals shut up about the plight of the poor man, when Conservatives donate more money to charity?

- 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.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/...

If you really cared you would be donating money and doing volunteer work. GFY Hypocrites.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • righty
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    ya they are pretty sad arent they? they call us greedy when we give more than they do. the amount churches give to the poor isnt even mentioned. they are mostly conservative. sad liberals. its a sickness really. i feel sorry for them.

    wow look at scott monster. what a douche. church's open way more shelters and give more money than he ever has. but he just lied and said other wise becaues he doesnt like the statistic. sad. liberals arent going to like this one. they are going to make the gayest excuses ever

  • Sally
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    The fundamental right to privacy, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, protects against unwarranted invasions of privacy by federal or state entities, or arms thereof. As early as in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), the U. S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the doctor-patient relationship is one which evokes constitutional rights of privacy. But even that right is not absolute and must be weighed against the state or federal interest at stake. For example, in Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), a group of physicians joined patients in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a New York statute that required physicians to report to state authorities the identities of patients receiving Schedule II drugs (controlled substances). The physicians alleged that such information was protected by the doctor-patient confidentiality, while the patients alleged that such disclosure was an invasion of their constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court did not disagree with the lower court’s finding that “the intimate nature of a patient’s concern about his bodily ills and the medication he takes … are protected by the constitutional right to privacy.” However, the high court concluded (after balancing the state’s interests) that “Requiring such disclosures to representatives of the State having responsibility for the health of the community, does not automatically amount to an impermissible invasion of privacy.” - "Although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence, the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population (Institute of Medicine, 2006)." - "…the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)." - "The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is very small. . . only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill (Mulvey, 1994)." -"People with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001). People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 ½ times more likely to be attacked, raped or mugged than the general population (Hiday, et al.,1999)." The second admendment gives citizens the right to defend themselves and you want to disarm a lot of victims of their rights for a few news clip stories. It's a scam to disarm anybody and everybody slowly. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing repeatedly with the same results, prohibation of a product that have customers who don't care it's banned in mass never works. Obama has been accused twice of gun smuggling once with project gunrunner fast & furious in Mexico and Bengazi by foreignors which both countries have restrictive gun rights. Obama hails from Chicago where law enforcement is giving up or becoming violent themselves. Chicago has the most gun restrictions then everywhere but second admendment supporters are nuts for knowing the history of the yellow badge of shame.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Conservatives give more? Sure. Buying in Gucci. Who told you that lie? Homer Simpson? Balony! Republican conservatives are the stingiest people on planet Earth and beyond! You lie? HA HA!

  • 1 decade ago

    Liberals do not give much to charity because they feel that the government should be taking care of everyone.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Since 2000 our liberal donations have been to political issues and Democratic candidates. In the long run a more liberal progressive country will benefit more of those in need. Hopefully with good paying jobs.

  • 1 decade ago

    Liberals want a lot of money to go to help poor people... as long as it is other people giving the money. They are happy to take other people's money.

    Edit-- Hahaha, homegirl is delusional...

    "In the long run a more liberal progressive country will benefit more of those in need. Hopefully with good paying jobs."

    The only thing a liberal progressive country does is put more and more people on welfare.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yep, take a look at Joe "tight wad" Biden and his $3,600 in donations over a 10 year period.

  • 1 decade ago

    thats only half the picture. That only counts for dontations that people declare, not what they actually give. And frankly, giving to the Church doesn't really help the poor.

    I've personally donated both my time and my money without declaring a penny. Can you claim that?

  • Will
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    You use Real clear as a reliable source. That's a joke right from the get go. FAILED

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    "The single biggest predictor of someone's (charitable giving)... is religion...(T)he least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives."

    Source(s): Your linked article
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.