Who really cares about the poor?
And I mean who cares about the poor when the rubber hits the road? Liberals will tell you they do. Almost every day you hear that catch phrase or see another liberal tard trying to pass a bill that will steal more money from those who work, in order to maybe never give it to the poor. But when it comes to their own pockets, you know when they can not use our money to give out, how often do the liberals give and compared to conservatives, who gives the bigger percentage.
Most will not be surprised by the answer, it is the conservative that gives much more to those in need than the liberal does.
A study by Authur C Brooks, a professor from Syracuse, found that it is “surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.”
He found that 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).
He also discovered that
Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
What an amazing find. Could it be that the liberal who display slogans such as “Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All,” “Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty,” “The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion,” “Arms Are For Hugging,” “Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India),” “Jesus Is a Liberal,” “God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts,” “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans,” “Republicans Are People Too — Mean, Selfish, Greedy People” and so on only give when the cameras are watching and when it is our money, not theirs, that they are giving away? Well lets look at our last president and the current one. I mean, by golly gee and all that is holy, Bush was such a POS and Obama is the new Jesus, there will be no comparison, right? Obama has preached about how we must care for those who have been lazy, his wife spoke about taking our pie, so they must be setting the example for us all….right?
WRONG! According to published tax returns, Obama and Biden were dismal in the charitable givings and gave much less than the two “war mongering assholes who used their position to enrich themselves before leaving office!” Liberal have name called these two and screamed that they despised the poor and those in need, so lets look to see if they were right shall we.
According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this “giving back” stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.
Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591,$212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236,$31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.
For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million — more than twice President Bush’s 2005 income of $735,180 — but they both gave about the same amount to charity.
That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. 77 Percent and yes that is the right number! The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama’s. Maybe when Obama talks about “change” he’s referring to his charitable contributions.
Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That’s for other people to do with what’s left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut. What a tremendous difference between the four. But maybe, just maybe, there is yet hope for a Democrat leader. Now Al Gore stated that homelessness has caused more to damage the environment than planes although I am not sure how he came to that reasoning. But for giggles sake, lets overlook the lies of global warming and his own lies and stretched truth and buy into that statement for a sec. One would assume that with his “passion” for fixing the economy, Gore would be a leader in the giving to the poor so that the environment ceases to be harmed, but we would be wrong.
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore’s charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore “gave at the office.” By using public office to give other peoples’ money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word. Oh wow, a whopping 0.2 percent in charitable givings.
Now lets be honest, no one is required to give and if they give anything from their own money, good for them. I am also not saying that no liberals give or out give the conservatives, nor am I saying that all conservatives give and or give more than liberals. But I will say that most liberals on average give less to the needy unless of course they are giving our money to them. The only thing they care about when it comes to the poor, is using them for slogans and deceitful attacks not based in reality against the conservatives.
Most liberal rich and politicians take the Gore mentality when it comes to giving which is, “I gave at the office” which interpreted means I gave your money!
On an interesting and side not, Mr Brooks also found that The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.” America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.
**some of this diary is directly taken from the writings of George Will @ the Washington Post and from the research of Authur C Brooks** Article Link
Authur C Brooks writings are titled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.”