Why do LIBERALS call Conservatives GREEDY?

Question

I hear this all time but it does not square with the facts;

"But what really astounded him was the amount of giving: In 2000, he
says, conservative households gave 30 percent more money to charity
than liberal households."

"It's down the line," he says. "Religious people are 21 percent more
likely to volunteer in explicitly secular causes. They're even twice
as likely to donate blood."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/298992_givemoney10.html

Bible Belt most generous in charitable giving

"PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — New Englanders remain among the most
tightfisted in the country when it comes to charitable giving while
Bible Belt residents are among the most generous, according to an
annual index.
For the fourth year running, New Hampshire was the most miserly
state, according to the Catalogue of Philanthropy's Generosity
Index. Mississippi remained at the top for generosity.

The index, which takes into account both "having" and "giving," is
based on average adjusted gross incomes and the value of itemized
charitable donations reported to the Internal Revenue Service on
2003 tax returns, the latest available."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-20-national-giving_x.htm

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/

According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood
at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United
States would jump about 45 percent."

Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the
opposite of what he expected - so much so that he went back and
checked again.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.ht
ml

In 1991 and 1995 (the year of the OK City Bombing when donations to
the Red Cross poured in) John F. Kerry had incomes of $113,857 and
126,179 respectively. In those two years, Kerry donated a whopping
total of, drum roll please - $0 total to charity . No, that's not a
misprint - its zip, zero, zilch, nil, nada, no mas, the big donut,
the collar (to use a baseball term).

As far as George W. Bush is concerned, in 1991, the future
president, then a private citizen, reportedly had income of
$179,591, and charitable contributions of $28,236. In 1992, Bush
reported income of $212.313, and contributions of $31,914. In 1993,
Bush reported income of $610,772, and contributions of $31,292. In
1994, Bush reported income of $474,937 and in 1995, income of
$419,481.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2399.html

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2004/11/one-last-thought-on-
kerrys-religious.html


Dick Cheney - The ultimate 'greedy' republican!

"The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the
stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney's books. That left
about $1.9 million in income on which the Cheney's owed $529,636 in
taxes."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12318056/

Answer 1

There you are using FACTS again.

Conservatives, by definition, believe in relying on the individual
to contribute what they can and what they want. They generally want
less government interference.

Liberals believe the government is better at actuating "charity", so
they vote incessantly for more and more government programs, but
give less personally, thinking that their "progressive vote" is
charity in and of itself. How touching!

"I am a socialist, just not with my own money".

Answer 2

Of course not ALL conservatives are greedy. Some are quite generous just as there are some liberals who are misers. Liberals are religious and give in their religious institutions if they have an organized religious group they identify with. Liberals also realize that not all cherity is or can be faith based and thus tend to donate to secular charities. Since many liberals do so not as a tax deduction there often is no record of their donation. Read about the widow's mite in the Bible and you'll see who gains the greatest reward in the end.

As for blood donations I have not seen anyone even once asked at blood drives what their political affiliation is. However, of the people I know that do donate it's about half and half from each side.

Greed comes in different forms. One can give to charity and still be greedy. Greed is an attitude. While giving to charity for show and tax deductions may serve as a temporary good feeling and a false show of generosity or because one is obligated to tithe and others see the donation doesn't mean the donation was due to genuine care and love for fellow humans. Lack of support for those who are some how missed by the narrowly focused church of the 7th street congrational whatever is also necessary and that is where some fall short. When adequate services are available to everyone from faith based or private firms or individuals the government must do something. Call it socialism or whatever you want but we cannot allow people to starve as if this were a third world country. Barbara Bush was a prime example of the right's attitude toward those less fortunate. She expressed a Marie Antoinette attitude of let them eat cake when she visited the Superdome in the wake of hurricane Katrina.

Answer 3

Several of the links on your page came back with "Page Not Found" errors, which makes it a bit hard to analyze your claims, but then again the ones that do work point out some flaws in your argument. Your first link is from an OPINION piece, which makes it suspect from the start. Then as you read it, you discover that the opinion that is being voiced is based on the one and only study that the author of the opinion has read. A group of one would be considered a pretty small sample.

The second link leads to a story that indicates that the methods of the study being written about have been questioned, and that the study looked at the ratio of gross income to charitable giving, without regard to other factors such as cost of living. Using a different method, taking into account factors like taxes and cost of living, Massachusett's ranking goes from 49th to 11th. Which doesn't prove anything except that numbers can be manipulated to make a point.

I would also point out that using the numbers given in the MSNBC piece, the Cheneys itemized less than 1% (0.85 to be precise) of their gross income as charitable contributions. According to the study cited in the USAToday story (you have to follow the link to "State-by-State comparison of charitable giving"), the average American taxpayer who itemizes charitable deductions gives nearly 8%, with Mississippi highest at 14% and even those miserly Northeasterners giving at least 5%. This would seem to indicate that poor and middle class people, without regard to political affiliation, are at least 5.88 times more generous than at least one wealthy conservative couple.

Answer 4

Calling a club a club and a spade a spade would injury yet usually the actuality hurts. Conservatives by using nature are no longer as beneficiant as liberals. that would not inevitably lead them to undesirable. Over alll human beings are the main beneficiant human beings ever on the planet. one ingredient I even have observed is that those with wealth have a tendency to furnish to charities so as that they do no longer would desire to straight away become in contact with the riff raff the charities serve. those with much less funds volunteer with the aid of fact they don't have the money to furnish. no longer something with human beings is absolute. no longer all conservatives are grasping and not all liberals are beneficiant. The tendancies of their philosophies have a tendency to be that liberals by using their liberal nature are fairly extra beneficiant than conservatives. That generosity could be contemplated in giving blood, funds or time to a non-earnings corporation.

Answer 5

Its because most rich people are conservatives since they want to keep what they have so they fight change. When a rich person gives money its usually for a tax break and a much smaller percentage of their earnings are donated to charity than that of a middle class person. This does not carry down to the middle class conservatives since they are not as visible as the wealthy conservatives get branded as greedy.

Answer 6

Maybe Liberals look at politics and believe that if the citizens are just like the politicians. I say this because i hear that George W. Bush is an Oil man, which means he loves oil because it's worth a lot of money. Liberals say that bush is an oil man, simply because of high gas prices. You want to know something i am sick of hearing that our president is over in Iraq for oil, because it is not true, we are over there for war on terrorism.
Anyways Liberals saying that Conservatives are greedy is something my parents always say (who are Liberal), so maybe, just maybe parents try to tell there kids that is how it is, because their parents told them that. I would think it's the other way around and that Democrates (or Liberals) are greedy, because they make you pay taxes, so i would guess people just stay Liberal because they want to live any way they please, even if it's sin. Anyway i really like what you put in details, about giving to charity, and giving blood. I think i will use that information next time a Liberal says something about conservatives being greedy.

Answer 7

Yes honey and I have worked for corporations that gave us a bonus when the taxes on their profit were going to surpass the bonus money if they didn't. Republicans are called greedy because of agreeing with tax cuts that only help the rich and the corporations and their contempt for the elderly and the poor. And I do not give blood because I think it is criminal for me to give and then have someone charged a lot of money for something I gave. When hospitals stop making a profit off me I will give.

Answer 8

Because they are greedy. I just think its funny that you think the Bush Family income is actually that low. Gee wonder if they didn't report some cash those years. Now thats greed.

Answer 9

Yes, it's a fact that religious people give more to charity, but the poor give more than the rich.

Answer 10

Um, realistically, are "religious" and "conservative" synonyms? I think its a BIT of a stretch. If any "liberals" are calling "conservatives" greedy, I doubt that its an attack on religion or people of faith, but more so the governmental figures. =) More often than not, when one party refers to another, its mainly about people within the federal government and not individual households- sadly enough. The citizens are being forgotten in this politically driven war between the head officials.