Liberals love to taxed - Conservatives give more to Charity - Who is right?

Question

Liberals say "I don't mind being taxed more to help out my fellow countrymen".

So you trust George W. Bush, Bill Clinton & Ronald Reagan to spend your hard earned money more than you trust yourself. Why not keep more of the money you earn and give it to the causes you care most about like conservatives do?

Conervatives give more to charity link;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LiberalsRsheep/message/6

The LINKS on this blog are from CNN and the Seattle PI. Its shows how little liberals give to charity.

Answer 1

Liberals love to pay as you go while conservatives love to buy now and pay later through borrow and spend. In the long run they are no different. Somebody is going to eventually pay.

As for giving to charity the volume in money may be more amongst the rich conservatives but it is only money. Write a check and forget it until tax time when it can be deducted. Where the liberal is more likely to get involved in the charity by physically touching the lives of those in need. Who cares more? You be the judge.

Answer 2

I'm not gonna respond to this question, but rather answer your challenge on another question that you gave me best answer. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj3GACgPZX1vR3pcvNFylf_ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070929095947AA9ww0F&show=7#profile-info-BDXckx9Eaa

Anywho, here's why you can't prove the prevention of something just by noting its non-existence. If I wear a condom during intercourse and the woman doesn't have a child, does that mean the condom prevented preganancy? Nope, not at all. It could mean that her or I is infertile, it could mean that there isn't the right chemistry, it could mean a ton of things. Likewise, just because there hasn't been a terrorist attack since September 11th, does not prove that Bush (or anyone else) stopped it. You can't prove the prevention of something simply by its absence alone. Gotta support that claim with a lot of other actual logical arguments. Got it now?

I'll give you a line often used by Liberals, just to show you my nuance: Bill Clinton made the world safe after the Cold War with no major international wars. However, once again, the reason there were no international wars was not because of anything Clinton did, it was just the times. He would have had to work hard to get the U.S. in a large scale war (I of course admit that Kosovo and Iraq '98 were wars, just using the libs point of view). Thus, once again they are trying to prove productive action by a President simply because certain bad things didn't happen during the Presidency. That's not reasonable. Once again, you can't prove the prevention of something simply by its lack of existence.

On the question you actually ask, I give a ton to charity and unfortunately know that my taxes are going to have to go up in the future because of foolish spending by this administration (among others). We do have to start caring about the long term financial stability of the country. And that means that a 1% raise on everyone today will prevent a 10-20% raise just to pay off our debt sunk in Iraq later.

Answer 3

You are mistaking tax raising with balancing the budget. George W took the record surplus and turned it in to a record deficit. This is why we are now seeing a weakening dollar in the world. We also are seeing the result with higher interest rates. Not to mention it is foreign countries such as China that are buying the treasury bills used to finance our debt. The Republican party is slowly making us economic slaves of foreign countries.
The only tax cuts the conservatives benefit the richest 10%. While this is going on the Bush administration raised the payroll tax on the rest of us.
The federal government budget grew as a percent of the GDP under every Republican since Reagan. The only reduction in the size of the Federal Governement was under Clinton.

I just notices something. Your link is no proof that conservatives donate more money to charities. It is nothing but a blog of conservatives stroking themselves.

Answer 4

That's because conservatives HAVE more money. Not because they worked harder but because their cronies in the government have funnelled money into their pockets.

I recently gave a donation to a marine standing outside the deli collecting donations for a veterans hospital. This is something the government should be paying for. Conservatives are so anathema to giving to ANYONE who is not CURRENTLY serving them in some way. You lost 3 limbs in the war, what have you done for me lately?

Conservative politicians and pundits love to play 'chicken' with the sense of obligation of citizens, preferning to give people the 'option' of whether or not to support the troops, rather than tax people.

(you know, the ones who die to protect your freedom and defend your right to be rich in the first place).

Answer 5

CNN is biased toward conservatives...they give to where they want to give...you made your own point.

I'm a liberal and I've never said "I don't mind being taxed to help out my fellow country men." Conservatives sound so dumb trying to figure out other people.

and what is a Conervative....seeing as you can't spell, I don't trust you to give anyone anything.

We need money for the environment, schools (all schools not just in good districts), welfare, cooperate and for the public, kids in foster care, the elderly...we NEED government run and licensed people to handle this.......... That is why I gladly pay my taxes and give my time and money to charity.

I don't trust Bush, or Regan to do anything....A. Regan is DEAD....and he was a lousy president...Bush is a lousy president...the economy has been a mess under both of them....B. I don't trust republicans for anything.

And I hate to tell you, the budget was balanced under Clinton.........spending WAY more under control...

Get your facts straight and do some research from more than a conservative site...and learn how to use spell check.

By the way, conservatives are more religious than liberals....religious people tend to give more....it has to do with spirituality NOT political issues....me, I'm a spiritual liberal.

Answer 6

Liberals imposed themselves via the government in the charitable process, effectively becoming the 'middleman'.

Largess is distributed to favored groups through highly inefficient buerecratic channels, and thus ensures the cycle of dependancy, not to mention the fact that it brings votes on election day.

Charity should come from the heart - not forcibly confiscated and re-distributed by a government agency

Answer 7

They are both corrupt. Neither are for the people they are for big business or for anybody who will donate to there elections and campaign. They care about nobody but themselves, if they cared about the American people they would not outsource millions of jobs. Its not hearting us so bad right now but more and more jobs are being outsourced everyday. Even the airlines outsource mechanic work to Asians. Do you trust your airlines being fixed by people that don't have rules and guidelines like the USA. For all you know a drunk idiot could be working on your plane.

Answer 8

maximum people who donate to charity dont write it off. you will desire to itemize to jot down off a charitable donation and the majority dont. except you very own a house or produce different issues to make itemization properly worth doing you arent going to have the flexibility to jot down off charitable giving. I supply a some right here and there and that i havent itemized the final 2 years. and that i'm somewhat no longer wealthy.

Answer 9

I understand your point but I take issue with your contention that liberals love to be taxed. Just take a look at many well to do liberals tax shelters and extreme tax avoidance efforts. Do you remember how it was revealed that the Clintons' tax return showed a deduction for donating old underwear to charity? Liberals do not love to be taxed-they love for you to be taxed.

Liberals are notorious for exempting themselves from the very rules they make everyone else follow. Remember the house banking scandal? The House Post Office scandal? Congress exempting themselves from laws regarding affirmative action in their own official hiring practices?

.

Answer 10

I don't mind giving money to help people, but I hate the idea of my government telling me I'm too stupid to figure out who needs my money and forcing me to give money to help people who have no intention of ever getting off their lazy butts and helping themselves. READ: I'm not talking about people who are physically or mentally disabled -- they should be taken care of -- and I also have no problem helping people who don't have jobs because of a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina or people who are trying to find work but can't. It's the people who spend their entire lives holding their hands out and expecting everyone else to take care of them that I have a problem with, and our government throws billions of dollars at these leeches every year. People whine and moan and say we could pay for New Orleans to be rebuilt if we stopped the war. Well, I have news for you: If our government took the money it spent in ONE YEAR on people who contribute absolutely nothing to our society (except more children) the levee in New Orleans would have been repaired already and The Big Easy would be well on its way to restoring its former glory.