Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Gramarye

Red or Blue: Who donates to better charities?

Recommended Posts

If you're not willing to talk about the real reason that these things (admitting privileges, etc.) became part of the conversation (i.e., Kermit Gosnell), you're not talking about it honestly.  You can trace an almost direct cause and effect relationship between the revelations of that story and the subsequent bills in various states requiring the safeguards that were absent there.  Of course, it's possible that some other states (even blue ones, I don't even know) already had some of those restrictions, but many of those that didn't felt it was important to get them in place in a hurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the "blue states", either. And you can trace a cause and effect relationship, but you didn't. It is hypocrisy for GOPs to say they are against excessive regulations and the government controlling our personal lives. It is abuse of power. They put the abortion restrictions into the budget as a cheap gimmick to get around existing checks and balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not hypocrisy.  The GOP is not a collection of anarchists.  Being against regulations intended to protect local cab drivers from competition, or turn the entire health insurance industry into a bunch of marionettes controlled from Washington, is qualitatively different than regulations designed to protect living human beings, including unborn ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Except the GOP doesn't give a shit about living human beings either.  That 6 year old kid is malnourished?  Why doesn't he get his lazy ass a job?  Mother shouldn't have gotten pregnant if she couldn't afford a child!  Welfare?  Why can't these people pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make something of themselves?! 

 

It's the height of hypocrisy to protect only the unborn (which by definition also requires restricting the rights of the mother, something you conveniently omit) and then dismiss all responsibility for further care and protection after they're born. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not hypocrisy.  The GOP is not a collection of anarchists.  Being against regulations intended to protect local cab drivers from competition, or turn the entire health insurance industry into a bunch of marionettes controlled from Washington, is qualitatively different than regulations designed to protect living human beings, including unborn ones.

 

Sorry.  Thats crap.  They arent too interested in protecting most minoities that are already born. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like that one guy who wanted to LOWER minimum wage and actually campaigned on that (he has since recanted). Gotta help out the job creators, folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not willing to talk about the real reason that these things (admitting privileges, etc.) became part of the conversation (i.e., Kermit Gosnell), you're not talking about it honestly.  You can trace an almost direct cause and effect relationship between the revelations of that story and the subsequent bills in various states requiring the safeguards that were absent there.  Of course, it's possible that some other states (even blue ones, I don't even know) already had some of those restrictions, but many of those that didn't felt it was important to get them in place in a hurry.

 

I fail to see how prohibiting abortion clinics from having admitting privileges at public hospitals comes out of the Kermit Gosnell trial.  The Kermit Gosnell case exposed the complete lack of government oversight on his facility and others like his.  The response of the Ohio legislature to simply strip admitting privileges from abortion clinics is an absurd response to the case.  The conservatives in Ohio were simply looking for an excuse to take these fairly extreme measures and they found it in Philadelphia.  The appropriate response would have been to review the regulations on abortion clinics and ensure that they are inspected on a regular basis so that those undergoing a legal medical procedure in the state do so in a safe environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the GOP being a bunch of hard-line Free-Market-ers, you'd think they'd understand supply and demand. Reducing the supply of abortions doesn't really affect demand, it simply makes it more expensive (monetarily and otherwise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not hypocrisy.  The GOP is not a collection of anarchists.  Being against regulations intended to protect local cab drivers from competition, or turn the entire health insurance industry into a bunch of marionettes controlled from Washington, is qualitatively different than regulations designed to protect living human beings, including unborn ones.

 

Sorry.  Thats crap.  They arent too interested in protecting most minoities that are already born. 

 

They might not be too keen on buying their votes with money taxed from others, but that's different than actually protecting their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You're better than that.  Highly distasteful to even imply that minority votes can be bought with handouts of other people's (i.e. good, god-fearing white folk's) money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their issue is more about controlling women than the actual unborn child/fetus. It all probably stems from their belief that Eve was responsible for Adam's fall from grace, and they've been pissed at women ever since.

 

Since our country's inception, conservatives have fought tooth and nail against women on every level, from land rights to voting rights to abortion rights to spousal abuse and martital rape laws to union demonization (in particular with school unions who were the ones who employed women well before other professions) to equal pay laws and on. The party name changes but this insane anti-woman conservative ideology remains.

 

My god, is it just me or are they completely wrong every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You're better than that.  Highly distasteful to even imply that minority votes can be bought with handouts of other people's (i.e. good, god-fearing white folk's) money

 

Did you even read what the other guy wrote?  Or do you just reflexively agree with it, so that makes it OK?

 

ETA: And considering that I haven't been to church in years and married a minority (and a non-Christian), I'm pretty sure the Jesus-freak barbs are aimed well wide of the mark.  Just a quick PSA regarding making assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than finding it distasteful, why don't you try proving it wrong.  Something can be both distasteful and absolutely correct.  After all, it's not like I consider it a particularly tasteful fact myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want me to try to prove that the party which regularly wins the vast majority of minority votes does so by means other than telling them that "your welfare checks are here to stay?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare is certainly a part of it, but there are more programs that are built on foundations of minority patronage than that.  And I seriously don't see how you can realistically argue that racial patronage (including direct redistribution as well as promises of preferences for college admissions, government jobs, and government contracts) is not a key pillar of Democratic coalition-building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare is certainly a part of it, but there are more programs that are built on foundations of minority patronage than that.  And I seriously don't see how you can realistically argue that racial patronage (including direct redistribution as well as promises of preferences for college admissions, government jobs, and government contracts) is not a key pillar of Democratic coalition-building.

 

In the same ways Corporate welfare and religion are for the right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find generous support for corporate welfare among both parties.  The differences lie in which corporations and industries get more welfare.

 

As for religion, I think you mean in particular evangelical Protestantism.  I was raised Roman Catholic; Catholics are much, much closer to 50-50.  Jews actually lean reasonably heavily Democratic.  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists do, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare is certainly a part of it, but there are more programs that are built on foundations of minority patronage than that.  And I seriously don't see how you can realistically argue that racial patronage (including direct redistribution as well as promises of preferences for college admissions, government jobs, and government contracts) is not a key pillar of Democratic coalition-building.

 

Liberals/democrats are certainly more sympathetic to efforts aimed at increasing the social mobility of groups that are statistically disadvantaged.  But it is no more "a pillar of Democratic coalition-building" than outright bigotry is a pillar of GOP coalition-building.  Whatever percentage you assign to the GOP on that, I will allow you to assign a similar percentage to the other side of the aisle.  Regardless, the comment you made which I responded to was not quite so all-encompassing - "buying their (i.e. minorities') votes with money taxed from others (i.e. non-minorities)."

 

You can't have it both ways.  We are either bleeding heart liberals, or we are simply buying votes for the purposes of coalition building.  Pick one and stick with it.  Personally, I was never offended by being called a bleeding heart liberal.  Conversely, I know quite a few minorities who would be outright offended by the accusation that their political vote can be bought with government handouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare is certainly a part of it, but there are more programs that are built on foundations of minority patronage than that.  And I seriously don't see how you can realistically argue that racial patronage (including direct redistribution as well as promises of preferences for college admissions, government jobs, and government contracts) is not a key pillar of Democratic coalition-building.

 

It's called being nice to your fellow man. Some people need more help than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to interrupt the Republican hate-fest, but I've seen a few studies showing that appear to show that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats.

 

Here's an interesting, fairly recent collaborative study by Penn State, Rice and UT San Antonio:

 

"We found that while both Democrats and Republicans tend to equally value justice and caring for the vulnerable, Republicans place a much higher value on issues of purity and respect for authority," said Karen Page Winterich, study co-author and professor of marketing at Penn State University.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2012/06/01/giving-differently-liberals-and-conservatives-have-radically-different-views-of-charity/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends a whole lot on what you consider charity.  Conservatives donate a ton to religious charities, while liberals disproportionately give to other non-profit, secular organizations.  At the very least, conservatives carry their own weight in private giving.  Joel Osteen seems to be doing well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to interrupt the Republican hate-fest, but I've seen a few studies showing that appear to show that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats.

 

Here's an interesting, fairly recent collaborative study by Penn State, Rice and UT San Antonio:

 

"We found that while both Democrats and Republicans tend to equally value justice and caring for the vulnerable, Republicans place a much higher value on issues of purity and respect for authority," said Karen Page Winterich, study co-author and professor of marketing at Penn State University.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2012/06/01/giving-differently-liberals-and-conservatives-have-radically-different-views-of-charity/

 

I've seen liberals acknowledge that conservatives are at least as charitable as liberals, but criticize us sharply because we tend to give to familiar causes and/or people we know, rather than unconditionally.

 

There's the real disconnect, not charity itself.  Most of us on the right, I suspect, don't see any problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare is certainly a part of it, but there are more programs that are built on foundations of minority patronage than that.  And I seriously don't see how you can realistically argue that racial patronage (including direct redistribution as well as promises of preferences for college admissions, government jobs, and government contracts) is not a key pillar of Democratic coalition-building.

 

Liberals/democrats are certainly more sympathetic to efforts aimed at increasing the social mobility of groups that are statistically disadvantaged.  But it is no more "a pillar of Democratic coalition-building" than outright bigotry is a pillar of GOP coalition-building.

 

We'll have to disagree on that.

 

You can't have it both ways.  We are either bleeding heart liberals, or we are simply buying votes for the purposes of coalition building.  Pick one and stick with it.  Personally, I was never offended by being called a bleeding heart liberal.  Conversely, I know quite a few minorities who would be outright offended by the accusation that their political vote can be bought with government handouts.

 

First, "you" are not a monolithic bloc.  Second, those two things (being a bleeding-heart liberal and promising to buy the votes of people who vote for you with the money of people who don't) are not mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to interrupt the Republican hate-fest, but I've seen a few studies showing that appear to show that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats.

 

Here's an interesting, fairly recent collaborative study by Penn State, Rice and UT San Antonio:

 

"We found that while both Democrats and Republicans tend to equally value justice and caring for the vulnerable, Republicans place a much higher value on issues of purity and respect for authority," said Karen Page Winterich, study co-author and professor of marketing at Penn State University.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2012/06/01/giving-differently-liberals-and-conservatives-have-radically-different-views-of-charity/

 

I've seen liberals acknowledge that conservatives are at least as charitable as liberals, but criticize us sharply because we tend to give to familiar causes and/or people we know, rather than unconditionally.

 

There's the real disconnect, not charity itself.  Most of us on the right, I suspect, don't see any problem with that.

 

wow! that's mighty white of them! :mrgreen:, considering the relatively paltry amounts--relatively speaking--liberals tend to give to homeless organizations and humanitarian causes in third world countries.  My observation has been that liberals tend to give primarily to causes or "charities" that advance their political worldview, while giving lip service to the poorest of the poor (which they happily consign to government responsibility); while religious organizations reach out on a direct level and meet the needs of those truly suffering most (the most obvious example is the Salvation Army; and also in New York are the New York City Rescue Mission and the Bowery Mission--all conservative Christian organizations. There are very few liberal groups--if any--that provide such services).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually heard of these conservative christian efforts in 3rd world countries before.....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/us-religious-presses-anti-gay-laws-africa-125113762.html

 

Seriously, how can one prove who gives more to third world countries?  Let's not be ridiculous.  The only thing for certain is it is done through different channels.  Conservatives set up missionaries.  Liberals join the peace corps or the red cross.  Conservatives give money to Pat Robertson and his foundations.  Liberals give to organizations such as the Global Clinton Initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I find it hard to take EVD's comment seriously considering the Global Clinton Initiative does a lot in third world countries and the Gates Foundation is the largest charitable foundation in the country and it does a ton in the third world (like efforts to eradicate Polio).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's the real disconnect, not charity itself.  Most of us on the right, I suspect, don't see any problem with that.[/color]

 

Call me a cynic, but I think that there may be a tax dodging aspect to this phenomenon, and perhaps even a stretch of the word "charity," but that's not even my biggest concern.  What concerns me is that many righties often imply that some sort of a widespread charity network could legitimately take on the many roles of what the government currently does in providing a social safety net.  Even if that were logistically feasible, which I think is highly unlikely, more concerning is what you mentioned in the above post (but that I accidentally deleted when quoting) that many folks tend to give to those that are somehow familiar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I find it hard to take EVD's comment seriously considering the Global Clinton Initiative does a lot in third world countries and the Gates Foundation is the largest charitable foundation in the country and it does a ton in the third world (like efforts to eradicate Polio).

 

The Gates Foundation?

 

What government program is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me a cynic, but I think that there may be a tax dodging aspect to this phenomenon, and perhaps even a stretch of the word "charity," but that's not even my biggest concern.  What concerns me is that many righties often imply that some sort of a widespread charity network could legitimately take on the many roles of what the government currently does in providing a social safety net.  Even if that were logistically feasible, which I think is highly unlikely, more concerning is what you mentioned in the above post (but that I accidentally deleted when quoting) that many folks tend to give to those that are somehow familiar. 

 

Is it crazy to think that private entities could cut out much of the bureaucracy and spend money more wisely than the government?

 

Private charities would be under strict scrutiny, and we could all donate money to the ones that are the most responsible and effective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^It's a private charity, just like the Global Clinton Initiative

 

^Not any more crazy to think that without the oversight and regulations required of government programs, private entities are more free to misdirect and misuse funds given to it.  If you suggest that we provide the oversight (i.e. strict scrutiny) through government then the argument becomes somewhat circular.  But it is really a pointless debate.  Getting rid of either private charity or government safety nets is a stupid idea.  Society works best with both in play.  Charities do a lot of great work, but let's not pretend that they weren't around prior to our government safety net programs.  If private donations were adequately taking care of the poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly, etc., there never would have been any need for programs like welfare, social security, medicaid, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's the real disconnect, not charity itself.  Most of us on the right, I suspect, don't see any problem with that.[/color]

 

Call me a cynic, but I think that there may be a tax dodging aspect to this phenomenon, and perhaps even a stretch of the word "charity," but that's not even my biggest concern.  What concerns me is that many righties often imply that some sort of a widespread charity network could legitimately take on the many roles of what the government currently does in providing a social safety net.  Even if that were logistically feasible, which I think is highly unlikely, more concerning is what you mentioned in the above post (but that I accidentally deleted when quoting) that many folks tend to give to those that are somehow familiar. 

 

Or it could be that we prefer charities who focus on the issues we consider most critical, or even those that expect some sort of effort on the part of their beneficiaries to better themselves.  Or don't foster a cycle of dependency, as we suspect government help sometimes does. Or those who focus on specific groups that we don't think have any influence over their circumstances. 

 

It's inaccurate to talk about "tax dodging" in this context because these contributions are tax deductions, not tax credits.  Even if someone may be buying publicity, it's costing them 3-4 times what the taxes would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it could be that we prefer charities who focus on the issues we consider most critical, or even those that expect some sort of effort on the part of their beneficiaries to better themselves.  Or don't foster a cycle of dependency, as we suspect government help sometimes does. Or those who focus on specific groups that we don't think have any influence over their circumstances. 

 

And then we could have competing charities, as other donate to organizations that you may not like. Which results in no unified approach to public problems and less efficient use of money, as one donation tries to undo another.

 

Instead, with a government role, we have a public policy for a public problem -- a policy crafted through a public process and hammered out by people with varying viewpoints.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...