Another liberal lie debunked

[Revmitchell]

Liberals(including those on this board) perpetuate the idea that conservatives do not care about the poor, homeless and hungry.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- 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).

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

This "giving gap" also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found "if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent."

When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that "red" states in the 2004 election were more charitable than "blue" states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, "The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar."

Why? A clue may be found in the 1996 General Social Survey, which asked Americans whether they agreed that "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." People who "disagreed strongly" with that statement gave 12 times more money to charity per year than those who "agreed strongly" with the statement.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html

 

[carpro]

It verifies what I already knew.

Liberals talk a good game but they'd prefer to spend someone else's money when paying lip service to helping others.

 

[billwald]

For 30 years on the Seattle Police Department I was always in hot water for my big mouth. When I was working around the Pike Place Market on weekends people were always telling me about the poor man sleeping in the alley and can't I help him? I usually told them the man was within his legal rights to be in the alley but they were free to help him, could take him to their house and let him sleep in their garage. Far as I know, no one ever did help the poor man and every time I expected to get a complaint but never did.

 

[Revmitchell]

For 30 years on the Seattle Police Department I was always in hot water for my big mouth. When I was working around the Pike Place Market on weekends people were always telling me about the poor man sleeping in the alley and can't I help him? I usually told them the man was within his legal rights to be in the alley but they were free to help him, could take him to their house and let him sleep in their garage. Far as I know, no one ever did help the poor man and every time I expected to get a complaint but never did.

Nothing like bringing some stranger home and waking up dead.

 

[annsni]

At our old church, we had a similar situation as Bill's. We had a homeless woman sleeping on the steps of the church in town. She had a grocery cart full of her belongings and was very dirty. People kept telling us to take care of her - to get her some help and stuff. We did try. We brought her in to feed her and she wanted nothing to do with that. We gave her money and she threw it in the trash. Guess what we later found out? She was a millionaire but mentally ill. She even owned a home a few miles away and a daughter lived nearby but she wanted nothing to do with anyone. She never hurt anyone so we left her where she was because it was actually sheltered. In the bitter cold, we made sure there was heat coming out the door so she could snuggle up there. She died about 15 years ago.

But I agree - liberals talk a good talk but don't necessarily walk the walk. When I get charities call on the phone, I tell them that more than 10% of our income goes to charity and if they'd like to send us info, we will evaluate the organization to see if we would support them. EVERY time they were shocked to hear the 10% number. What's so shocking about 10%?

 

[Steven2006]

I am conservative, and I do think many liberals talk more than do. However I have read these types of polls before and I am not sure they are a real example of giving to charities. If I am correct this counts all giving including to our church. Since so many conservatives are also regular attending church members, of course they might give a higher percentage of their income in total because they are biblically supporting their church. It just doesn't feel honest to then use that figure in saying that "we" give more to the poor and hungry than liberals do based on this, we may do so, but I would like to see numbers showing just charitable giving before lauding over people heads.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Nothing like bringing some stranger home and waking up dead.

And the Good Samaritin said, "Gee, I'd best not help him, he might hurt me."

I am sure Jesus understands this kind of logic.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

CTB's self righteous judgmental unChristlike self-exalting aside, the good Samaritan came upon someone who obviously would have died without help. When I approach a brokedown car around here, you can bet I have Mr. .44 Magnum right on my hip, in plain sight of anyone who may need my help.

 

[billwald]

>Nothing like bringing some stranger home and waking up dead.

It never occurred to respond, "Waking up with Jesus," did it? Why not?

 

[Revmitchell]

Ever since I could drive I have stopped and picked up hitchhikers. I have walked a few miles myself and know what it is to have to walk long distances. It is a great opportunity to share the gospel. I never pick up anyone unknown when my family is in the car and I never pick up women under any circumstances.

On one occasion I brought a homeless person to the house. That was to let him get cleaned up and eat a bit before I put him on a bus to Dallas to go live with a relative that was going to help him get on his feet. By the way he received the gospel on the tailgate of my truck that same evening.

Most times I would never bring an unknown home. But I have spent plenty of time taking them around to find a shelter. Drug attics will go to great lengths gain valuables and money to get more drugs. When you meet an unknown on the street you cannot know what they are about regardless of what they tell you.

And we need to be careful to not attempt to pull the prodigal out of the pig pen before God is ready for them. Sometimes the best thing you can do is leave people where they are. Regardless efforts that do not take into consideration the dangers dealing with people we do not know are wreckless.

Conservative spend a great amount of time out on the streets feeding the hungry and working with the homeless. But we don't spend much time talking about it. And the end goal is not just feeding them or housing them. Those have very little value in and of themselves. The end goal is the glorification of God. Feeding the hungry via government cannot do that. Housing the homeless through taxes is godless and irrelevant. Instead of promoting higher taxes maybe we should have a goal to use those funds in missions programs where god actually gets the credit.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Mitch, it is good that you help folks like that, but let me tell you, conservatives have no exclusivity on kindness. I won't go into details, but I and most of my friends, work year round to help the homeless, hungry, and less fortunate. So to disparage those who hold political postitions you disagree with doesn't mean they don't work to help those less fortunate. Human kindness is not a function of where on the political spectrum one lands.

 

[Jim1999]

If every "conservative" member of a church gave just the tithe each week, a local church would never have a need to beg for monies..It just ain't so, conservative or liberal.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[LeBuick]

Ever since I could drive I have stopped and picked up hitchhikers. I have walked a few miles myself and know what it is to have to walk long distances. It is a great opportunity to share the gospel. I never pick up anyone unknown when my family is in the car and I never pick up women under any circumstances.

On one occasion I brought a homeless person to the house. That was to let him get cleaned up and eat a bit before I put him on a bus to Dallas to go live with a relative that was going to help him get on his feet. By the way he received the gospel on the tailgate of my truck that same evening.

Most times I would never bring an unknown home. But I have spent plenty of time taking them around to find a shelter. Drug attics will go to great lengths gain valuables and money to get more drugs. When you meet an unknown on the street you cannot know what they are about regardless of what they tell you.

And we need to be careful to not attempt to pull the prodigal out of the pig pen before God is ready for them. Sometimes the best thing you can do is leave people where they are. Regardless efforts that do not take into consideration the dangers dealing with people we do not know are wreckless.

Very good quote and great testimony... :thumbsup:

Conservative spend a great amount of time out on the streets feeding the hungry and working with the homeless.

I don't see this much here but I'm sure there is truth to this. Probably has more to do with the parts of town where I spend most of my time. Doing good for ones fellowman is not a political division but is a higher calling.

But we don't spend much time talking about it. And the end goal is not just feeding them or housing them. Those have very little value in and of themselves. The end goal is the glorification of God.

I agree, at one time we had resources for job placement, resume writing etc... I think a lot of folks have been jobless for so long they've lost hope. A man with no hope easily looses purpose and direction.

Feeding the hungry via government cannot do that.

To the contrary, our Church uses funds from Bush' "Faith Based Initiative" program and it has brought much glorification to Christ and His Church. When folks see us come they see Christ and His Church and knoweth not where the bucks came...

Housing the homeless through taxes is godless and irrelevant. Instead of promoting higher taxes maybe we should have a goal to use those funds in missions programs where god actually gets the credit.

You need to show us scripture where doing god via taxes is godless and irrelevant. I know that is your view but I don't think it has biblical support.

As Steven2006 pointed out these surveys are focused more on the charitable contribution like from the income tax form. This means tithes and offerings to the church count in this number so it is not a pure measure of who does for those in need. It also doesn't include time. I have members who don't have dollars but have plenty of time. What they give doesn't have a place on the tax form but it's sure appreciated by the receivers.

I only advocated higher taxes to those who could afford them. Is it fair, no. Is it needed, yes... Bill Gates and the likes won't short their mission contributions one cent because their taxes were raised. This means we can reach more homeless since we have more roads going in the direction of help.

 

[LeBuick]

Mitch, it is good that you help folks like that, but let me tell you, conservatives have no exclusivity on kindness. I won't go into details, but I and most of my friends, work year round to help the homeless, hungry, and less fortunate. So to disparage those who hold political postitions you disagree with doesn't mean they don't work to help those less fortunate. Human kindness is not a function of where on the political spectrum one lands.

I think a real good AMEN goes there.... :godisgood: :thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

=

I only advocated higher taxes to those who could afford them. Is it fair, no. Is it needed, yes... Bill Gates and the likes won't short their mission contributions one cent because their taxes were raised. This means we can reach more homeless since we have more roads going in the direction of help.

Providing welfare via government is in no way a witness to God. And you have no way of knowing what will effect the giving of men like Bill gates. Quite the presumption.

 

[LeBuick]

Providing welfare via government is in no way a witness to God. And you have no way of knowing what will effect the giving of men like Bill gates. Quite the presumption.

You have yet to show scripture.... In the psychology of things, people pray their needs to God so even if the answer comes via the government God still gets the glory.


No it is not presumptuous, if Bill wants to tithe or give to the needy he will do so even with a 3% tax increase. Now if Bill uses that as an excuse is very much another position to take but no one took away his ability to support the needy.

 

[Revmitchell]

You have yet to show scripture.... In the psychology of things, people pray their needs to God so even if the answer comes via the government God still gets the glory.

Even, for argument sake this is true, this does not address the lost who need the gospel.

No it is not presumptuous, if Bill wants to tithe or give to the needy he will do so even with a 3% tax increase.

You do not know what people "like" Bill gates will do.

Now if Bill uses that as an excuse is very much another position to take but no one took away his ability to support the needy.

Irrelevant

 

[Jim1999]

The government was never meant to witness for God. It was intended to serve society's needs which were not being met by the churches or any other service.

Thank God for the more "liberal" members who do look beyond their noses and try to help the needy.

Ever check the administrative charges for some of those so-called Christian aid organizations? Only a very small percentage actually goes to the child in Africa. My monies go directly to a missionary. They better know where the real need is and how to use the money.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[LeBuick]

Even, for argument sake this is true, this does not address the lost who need the gospel.

Yes it does, like in your testimony, they hear the Gospel every step of the way and everyone of them thanks Jesus and blesses His Church before they leave.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes it does, like in your testimony, they hear the Gospel every step of the way and everyone of them thanks Jesus and blesses His Church before they leave.

Welfare provides no gospel