Skip to comments.Liberals not as charitable as heartless, unfeeling conservatives
Posted on 01/25/2012 6:01:15 AM PST by KeyLargo
Liberals not as charitable as heartless, unfeeling conservatives
Posted on January 13, 2011 at 12:10 am by Ted Biondo
Liberals are very generous when it comes to giving away someone elses money to those causes they think are proper, but when it comes to giving their money, liberals are far less generous than the conservatives they accuse of being heartless people with little compassion for those less fortunate.
Data from numerous studies show this is true, yet the false notion and stereotype that conservatives are harsh and do not care about others stubbornly persist. Surveys also show that opposition to wealth redistribution is not evidence that one does not care about others.
On the liberal side of the aisle are the noted contributions of Democratic Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, with a combined income of $319, 853, giving an average of $369 a year to charity during the decade prior to his election, as released in tax records by the Obama campaign. The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable contributions in 2007, the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999!
As Vice President, Al Gore came under fire when his 1997 tax return showed only $353 in donations to charity. In 1995, Senator John Kerry gave nothing and Bill Clinton claimed $6 for the infamous donation of three pairs of underwear and a torn suit for $75 to the Salvation Army on his 1986 tax return.
George W. Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year he was president, as he did before becoming president.
Few would disagree that free enterprise is grounded in ones self-interest. But self-interest is not the same thing as selfishness in the sense of unbounded consumption or disregard for the less fortunate. In fact, the millions of Americans who advocate for private entrepreneurship and limited governmentwhether they are rich or poormay be stingy when it comes to giving away other peoples money through state redistribution, but they are surprisingly generous when it comes to giving away their own money privately.
The data tells the story,
The most recent year that a large, nonpartisan survey asked people about both redistributive beliefs and charitable giving was 1996. That year, the General Social Survey (GSS) found that those who were against higher levels of government redistribution privately gave four times as much money, on average, as people who were in favor of redistribution.
The only evidence we have that liberals love the poor is that they consistently back policies that create more poverty, and obviously live by the motto that charity begins at home - when its their money
Gifts to Charity Far Above Average
BY JOHN D. MCKINNON
Mitt Romney's tax returns show he pays a relatively low tax rate and gives a relatively high percentage of his income to charity. President Barack Obama pays a far higher tax rate, but gives less.
The numbers will be fuel for a debate over how much wealthier Americans should contribute in taxes. Conservatives argue taxpayers should be allowed to keep more of their money, which they in turn can distribute as they see fit. Liberals see the government as a more effective guarantor of the social safety net, and would prefer wealthier Americans bear the burden of supporting it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204624204577181460356241588.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and his wife reported giving 2.6 percent of their $3.1 million adjusted gross income to charity in 2010, http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120123/FREE/120129980
Jan. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney donated $7 million to charity in the past two years, more than the $6.2 million the candidate and his wife paid in federal taxes in that period, documents the campaign released show.
Libs outsource their compassion to the government. Voting for Democrats allows them to ignore their fellow man. It even permits them to be truly nasty to others because once every four years they “do the right thing.”
When government "helps" the needy, no one gets blessed. There is no giver, since taxes are paid under threat of force. And ultimately, there is no "receiver" either, as those being helped come to expect it as their due from the nameless, faceless goverment.
Correct, they disassociate from direct interaction from the needy.
Nothing new. Been that way ever since I can remember.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.