For those "The Red States are Leeches" crowd...

[Guest MikeSC]

Apparently, the red states are the ones who actually DONATE money.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

Delaware citizens give money to in-state after school programs such as indoor soccer leagues, Little League, and other things to keep their kids busy.

 

Rarely does anyone in this state give to charity since the money is used for other things.

 

I don't make enough to give jack. Right now I can't give myself a haircut let alone help some kid in India get a sandwich sadly.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't give to charity. I did once and I got so many calls from other charities that I'll never do it again.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Only charity I donate/would donate to are no-kill animal shelters.

 

And I'm from a blue state so it's all good...

[Guest SideFXs]

9 out of the 10 least generous states are blue states. Top ten most generous are Red States, except for Idaho, I think.

 

Conclusion, Liberals are hypocrites?

 

Oh yeah..........

 

I still have this problem with the media assigning conservatives states as red and liberal states as blue. Don't ya love the irony there?

[Slayer 0]

Conclusion, Liberals are hypocrites?

Conservatives have more money to give?

[BUTT 0]

I still have this problem with the media assigning conservatives states as red and liberal states as blue. Don't ya love the irony there?

I'm guessing the irony lies in the "fact" that Democrats are Communists.

[NYU 0]

9 out of the 10 least generous states are blue states. Top ten most generous are Red States, except for Idaho, I think.

 

Conclusion, Liberals are hypocrites?

What an absolutely stupid conclusion.

 

Has anyone raised the point that perhaps most of these charities being contributed to by these Southern states are Christian charities?

 

As in: The money isn't being given so much to those that need it rather than the organizations that these people agree with in the first place. Supporting Christian churches, pro-life rallies looking to support the end of abortions, contributions for measures on preserving the sanctity of marriage, and so on. This site merely notes the states that gave money to charities - it doesn't say what TYPES of charities. For all we know, the South spends a ridiculous amount of money on supporting the charities that represent their beliefs - which could explain why their rankings are so high. Meanwhile, the North could spend money on rather impartial groups more geared towards actually helping those who need it in certain urban areas. Yet, because they do spend less on this particular cause, they rank lower on the list.

 

Which allows some here to make ridiculous accusations.

 

Admittedly, these are just thoughts thrown out without much backing behind them. But then again, it's not like this philanthropy site provides much proof or actually EXPLAINS their justification either.

[Guest Loss]

President Bush needs to start posting at TSM and uniting us instead of dividing us. And no, that's NOT an invitation for a new gimmick poster.

[Guest MikeSC]

9 out of the 10 least generous states are blue states.  Top ten most generous are Red States, except for Idaho, I think.

 

Conclusion, Liberals are hypocrites?

What an absolutely stupid conclusion.

 

Has anyone raised the point that perhaps most of these charities being contributed to by these Southern states are Christian charities?

And the blue states can't give to groups like PETA and the like? Put your money where your mouths are.

As in: The money isn't being given so much to those that need it rather than the organizations that these people agree with in the first place. Supporting Christian churches, pro-life rallies looking to support the end of abortions, contributions for measures on preserving the sanctity of marriage, and so on. This site merely notes the states that gave money to charities - it doesn't say what TYPES of charities.

Don't speak about Christian charities further as you are so unspeakably uneducated on the subject that your opinion is beyond invalid.

 

And the uber-generous, bleed for the poor left don't have charities of their own?

 

Well, I s'pose not, actually.

For all we know, the South spends a ridiculous amount of money on supporting the charities that represent their beliefs - which could explain why their rankings are so high. Meanwhile, the North could spend money on rather impartial groups more geared towards actually helping those who need it in certain urban areas. Yet, because they do spend less on this particular cause, they rank lower on the list.

This is based solely on amount given. Stop trying to project REALLY inane conspiracy theories to cover up the greed of the North.

Which allows some here to make ridiculous accusations.

 

Admittedly, these are just thoughts thrown out without much backing behind them. But then again, it's not like this philanthropy site provides much proof or actually EXPLAINS their justification either.

Let me guess --- you didn't even look at the link, did ya? It actually gives a ton of details.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

President Bush needs to start posting at TSM and uniting us instead of dividing us. And no, that's NOT an invitation for a new gimmick poster.

Nah. It'd involve allowing the left to write bills --- and them bitching about the bill after it passes.

 

Seems like a waste of time.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

You do realize that liberals, on average, are going to have less money than conservatives, right? That's the whole essence of the argument. People with money don't tend to be liberal, unless they're from Hollywood or they're in politics.

[Guest MikeSC]

You do realize that liberals, on average, are going to have less money than conservatives, right? That's the whole essence of the argument. People with money don't tend to be liberal, unless they're from Hollywood or they're in politics.

Gee, somehow, they have money to give tons to political campaigns and the like. Odd how that works?

 

And odd, considering how much they care about others, while conservatives are such selfish bastards.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

1. I don't think most conservatives are selfish bastards. At all. I think little could be further from the truth, considering that I come from a family of conservative Democrats that is hardly selfish. I do think conservatives as a whole tend to fear change or progression, and while they're not selfish, all of their decision making is morally guided with the goal of maintaining the status quo at all times.

 

2. I have no evidence to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet that Republican donations are more widespread while Democrat donations come from a wealthy few. That's just a hunch. If you have any links that would prove otherwise, I'll eat my words.

 

I think I might try to research that theory sometime in the next couple of days actually ...

 

You're basically going to find two types of Democrats -- those who are filthy rich and those who are living in poverty. Two extremes with very little middle ground, as most of the middle class has shifted Republican since the end of Clinton's time in office. There are probably more conservatives making over $150,000 a year than liberals, and there are probably more millionaire liberals than conservatives. Therefore, expecting the same number of liberals to contribute as conservatives is way off when, most likely, their economic situation is totally different.

[Guest MikeSC]

1. I don't think most conservatives are selfish bastards. At all. I think little could be further from the truth, considering that I come from a family of conservative Democrats that is hardly selfish. I do think conservatives as a whole tend to fear change or progression, and while they're not selfish, all of their decision making is morally guided with the goal of maintaining the status quo at all times.

Loss, hate to break it to you --- but the ONLY group seeking actual change are conservatives. It's been that way for nearly 20 years.

 

Why was welfare reformed? Why is Social Security reform even discussed? Why is tort reform even a possibility? Why is affirmative action reform being discussed? It was all conservatives doing that.

 

The left has been the pro-status quo side for a while now.

2. I have no evidence to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet that Republican donations are more widespread while Democrat donations come from a wealthy few. That's just a hunch. If you have any links that would prove otherwise, I'll eat my words.

 

I think I might try to research that theory sometime in the next couple of days actually ...

And the liberal rich folks don't give their money away. Nice of them.

-=Mike

...Of course, the left now has Arianna Huffington, who decries the rich not paying their fair share in taxes while she didn't pay one red dime in 2001 or 2002...

[CanadianChris 0]

I found it interesting that, when you sorted the sheet by % of returns with charitable deductions, the states who gave the "most" were at the bottom, and the states that gave the "least" were at the top. Every state that was ranked from 40-50 on the "Generosity Index" was in the top 21 states for % of returns with charitable deductions, while 9 of the top 15 in the "Generosity Index" were ranked in the bottom 10 in my query.

 

Something's a bit fishy there...I'll have to have a closer look later to figure out exactly what. I also would like to see exactly what those contributions went toward.

[Guest MikeSC]

I found it interesting that, when you sorted the sheet by % of returns with charitable deductions, the states who gave the "most" were at the bottom, and the states that gave the "least" were at the top. Every state that was ranked from 40-50 on the "Generosity Index" was in the top 21 states for % of returns with charitable deductions, while 9 of the top 15 in the "Generosity Index" were ranked in the bottom 10 in my query.

 

Something's a bit fishy there...I'll have to have a closer look later to figure out exactly what. I also would like to see exactly what those contributions went toward.

It was a study of how much they gave in relation to how much they make. The richest states gave far less of their money than the poor states did.

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

Yes, but the money was given by fewer (in many cases, far fewer) people.

[Guest Loss]

Loss, hate to break it to you --- but the ONLY group seeking actual change are conservatives. It's been that way for nearly 20 years.

 

Why was welfare reformed? Why is Social Security reform even discussed? Why is tort reform even a possibility? Why is affirmative action reform being discussed? It was all conservatives doing that.

Those are not changes, Mike, those are undoings of progress that has been made. Taking steps backwards on welfare, affirmative action and tort reform is not a shake-up of the status quo.

 

The left has been the pro-status quo side for a while now.

 

Not really. It's the left that supports stem cell research without ridiculous limitations, gay marriage and government-sponsored healthcare. All changes proposed with the future in mind.

 

By your logic, Bush abolishing the Clean Air Act was "change".

 

And the liberal rich folks don't give their money away. Nice of them.

              -=Mike

 

How do you think organizations like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the NAACP, NOW and GLAAD, just to name a few, continue to exist without donations?

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, but the money was given by fewer (in many cases, far fewer) people.

It was, if memory serves, based on per capita donations. That takes into account.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

And the blue states can't give to groups like PETA and the like? Put your money where your mouths are.

 

Personally, I hate the antics of PETA, and I would never contribute to their organization. I'm guessing that wasn't your main point here.

 

Either way, what a terrible example of a group to support, Mike. I would have thought you would know better.

 

Don't speak about Christian charities further as you are so unspeakably uneducated on the subject that your opinion is beyond invalid.

 

And the uber-generous, bleed for the poor left don't have charities of their own?

 

Well, I s'pose not, actually.

 

Seeing as I am Christian and have contributed to Christian charities before, I would say that perhaps I do have some knowledge on the subject.

 

And, obviously, the liberals in the North do have money to support charities. And they have. They just cannot afford to do it to the extent that those in the South do.

 

But surprisingly enough, you missed the point here.

 

Religion in the South is much more uniform than it is in the North. In the South, the overwhelming majority of people are Christians. As a result, there is a staggering percentage of contributions being given to Christian organizations, since a large portion of the population share the same religion. In the North, religious observations are a little more varied. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and so on. The list goes on. There really isn't one resounding religion that everyone can rally behind and throw their money to. Unlike the South, the North has a more splintered mindframe when it comes to the concept of religion and, as a result, financial contributions are a little more scattered.

 

Besides that, religion simply means more in the South than it does in the North. Gay marriages, abortions, etc. A more traditional outlook on these topics is presented in the South, which is why more people there would be willing to contribute to the Christian organizations that fight against these subjects. This we know as well. Take that as you will.

 

I'm sure you'll make a responsible decision by trying to use this fact to connect the dots and portray Northerners as bloodsucking demons, or something else of the sort.

 

Let me guess --- you didn't even look at the link, did ya? It actually gives a ton of details.

 

I certainly did look through the link. What I found were broken links (Our Catalogues for St.Louis, MO and Whatcom County, WA), pages not yet available (Site Map), About Us portions for only 2 locations - NORTHERN locations at that (Massachusetts and Washington D.C.), a Donor Resource page that simply sent me to other links around the web, a Generosity Index that lists a whole bunch of figures but no explanation BEHIND those figures, and a Search Page that nicely takes me right to Google.

 

Quite the impressive page. Certainly enough to draw everyone to the conclusion that Southerners are delightfully charitable and wonderful Good Samaritans, while the Northerners are willing to trip a poor man and steal two dollars out of his pocket as they watch him fall to the ground.

 

There simply is NOT enough information on this page for you to draw the conclusions you have been drawing.

 

Does the South contribute more money to charities than the North does? Possibly.

 

Does this site establish, without a doubt, that the South is more willing to help the poor while the North is more willing to watch them suffer? Absolutely not.

[Guest Loss]

I couldn't get the Excel document to open, but if this includes tithes, it's worthless information.

[Guest MikeSC]

Loss, hate to break it to you --- but the ONLY group seeking actual change are conservatives. It's been that way for nearly 20 years.

 

Why was welfare reformed? Why is Social Security reform even discussed? Why is tort reform even a possibility? Why is affirmative action reform being discussed? It was all conservatives doing that.

Those are not changes, Mike, those are undoings of progress that has been made. Taking steps backwards on welfare, affirmative action and tort reform is not a shake-up of the status quo.

Those absolutely are changes and are an attempt to fix massive problems evident in the system. There are no backwards steps involved. Requiring work and a time limit for welfare has been a massive boon. Affirmative action DESPERATELY needs reformation. Tort reform is unbelievably needed.

The left has been the pro-status quo side for a while now.

Not really. It's the left that supports stem cell research without ridiculous limitations, gay marriage and government-sponsored healthcare. All changes proposed with the future in mind.

 

By your logic, Bush abolishing the Clean Air Act was "change"

The "Far right" Bush is the only President to EVER allow ANY federal funding for stem cell research, so the complaint doesn't begin to hold water. The conservatives have no problem with stem cell research --- they have a problem with the gov't funding it. And the "changes" the left want will be damaging unbelievably to America (health care) or the usual innocuous crap (gay marriage).

And the liberal rich folks don't give their money away. Nice of them.

              -=Mike

How do you think organizations like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the NAACP, NOW and GLAAD, just to name a few, continue to exist without donations?

Well, the NAACP I know subscribes to the Jesse Jackson "Shakedown" school of fund raising. NOW nand GLAAD are such insignificant groups on the landscape that their fund-raising matches that.

 

I'm going with independent figures to state that the left doesn't give.

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

Yes, but the money was given by fewer (in many cases, far fewer) people.

It was, if memory serves, based on per capita donations. That takes into account.

-=Mike

No, it wasn't, and now I see the problem. They calculated average charitable contribution OF THOSE WHO DONATED ANYTHING. In other words, they eliminated all the people who contributed nothing from the calculation.

 

If you rank them on per capita donations, the top 10 look like this:

 

1. Utah

2. Maryland

3. New York

4. Georgia

5. Connecticut

6. California

7. New Jersey

8. Virginia

9. North Carolina

10. Alabama

 

And the bottom 10 looks like this:

 

41. Montana

42. Louisiana

43. New Hampshire

44. Alaska

45. New Mexico

46. Vermont

47. Maine

48. South Dakota

49. North Dakota

50. West Virginia

 

A much better representation than the original bit of piffle.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, you're right. It takes the avg. income and the avg. donation and gives them a ranking. It then subtracts the donation rank from the income rank to come up with final tally.

 

And it's DAMNED harsh. When the top Kerry state is NY --- at position 26 --- you have a group of hypocrites who won't put their money where their mouths are.

 

But, hey, they're libs. Hypocrisy is part-and-parcel of the charade.

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

Actually, you're right. It takes the avg. income and the avg. donation and gives them a ranking. It then subtracts the donation rank from the income rank to come up with final tally.

 

And it's DAMNED harsh. When the top Kerry state is NY --- at position 26 --- you have a group of hypocrites who won't put their money where their mouths are.

No, you have a bad, meaningless statistic. New York state ranks third in donations per capita, and tenth in percentage of gross income donated -- both much more meaningful than the contrived stat cited on the website.

 

Looking at % of gross income donated, which makes the blue states look kind of bad, but not as horrifically bad as they ended up looking, would be much better than what they decided to do.

 

My biggest pet peeve with the media? Blind acceptance of bad stats.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Only charity I donate/would donate to are no-kill animal shelters.

 

And I'm from a blue state so it's all good...

Hippie.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, you're right. It takes the avg. income and the avg. donation and gives them a ranking. It then subtracts the donation rank from the income rank to come up with final tally.

 

And it's DAMNED harsh. When the top Kerry state is NY --- at position 26 --- you have a group of hypocrites who won't put their money where their mouths are.

No, you have a bad, meaningless statistic. New York state ranks third in donations per capita, and tenth in percentage of gross income donated -- both much more meaningful than the contrived stat cited on the website.

 

Looking at % of gross income donated, which makes the blue states look kind of bad, but not as horrifically bad as they ended up looking, would be much better than what they decided to do.

 

My biggest pet peeve with the media? Blind acceptance of bad stats.

NY averages more personal income than most donates --- yet it gives less on average than 25 other states.

 

As the left says, those with money should give back to the community. The blue states, clearly, do not do that.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well, the NAACP I know subscribes to the Jesse Jackson "Shakedown" school of fund raising.

Did you read Shakedown, Mike? My family picked it up maybe two or three summers ago, and it was a real eye-opener, I enjoyed it a lot. Problem is, my dad loans it out to everyone he feels must read it, and I haven't seen the damn book in years.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, the NAACP I know subscribes to the Jesse Jackson "Shakedown" school of fund raising.

Did you read Shakedown, Mike? My family picked it up maybe two or three summers ago, and it was a real eye-opener, I enjoyed it a lot. Problem is, my dad loans it out to everyone he feels must read it, and I haven't seen the damn book in years.

Yes. Fascinating book. I wasn't shocked about Jackson's Wall Street game (I'd heard about the shakedowns for years) --- but his ties to street gangs in the 70's was a shocker.

-=Mike