So, that last paragraph you are doing the same you are accusing others from doing, assuming big.;)
Daydream Believer, are you going to turn down Medicare?
Wow. I am stunned. People are scare mongering about buying guns to get ready for Armagedden? Seriously? Obama has done nothing to get rid of gun rights.
But, but, you're OK with the R's wasting money and time putting up 92 bills in the last 4 years to ban abortion and control a woman's body? You're REALLY more concerned with guns than that?
You sound like my nasty, crazy, greedy, arrogant step-father who was in the military 30 years and has been living off of the government for the last 40 years, yet wants to make sure he takes away rights from everyone else, and he wants his gun back because he's afraid of the "riots" if Obama loses.
Democracy is technically control of the fewer by the majority. So it goes. Best system out there, imo. Not perfect, of course, especially if you are of the fewer.
If the folks in the blue states want to run their charity through the government, their business. Yes, governments are inefficient and often crooked. Ditto many/most charities, if you read the papers. Red staters give most of their charity to their churches, which have their own agendas. Not much in this world is perfect!
BTW, I found an interesting study that indicates blue states are more generous with their charitable contributions than red states, once factors such as income reduced by taxes and equalized by cost of living is factored in.
Forbes published an article about this, link below. But here's an excerpt that's simplifies the study a bit:
"The Generosity Index is inherently biased against high-income states like Massachusetts and Connecticut. We think our methodology is a lot fairer," commented Schervish. In fact, using his methodology Massachusetts leaps from 44th place on the Generosity Index to 11th on the Boston Foundation's list.
What they did was measure the share of total charitable contributions donated by the residents of each state and compare it to the share of income earned by residents of the same state. "Income can be calculated in terms of gross income, net of taxes, adjusted for differences in the cost of living in different states. In this way, all the residents of a state are captured the same way for each calculation, and there is no intrinsic bias against high- or low-income states. As the Generosity Index purports but fails to do, this formula compares the capacity of state residents to give against their actual pattern of giving."
Damn statistics. ;):D
Do you really think that the republicans in those states don't have to pay the same as the democrats that live in the same states?
My understanding is that the republicans donate OVER what taxes demand of all, more than democrats.
Not that I know, is what I though the data was showing.
Bluey, yes it's money they've given to charities, not what the government uses your taxes for. But let's not try and obfuscate shall we?
The only reason I even brought this out was in response to the statement that Republicans HATE everyone! DUH. Yeah, they hate so much that they willingly give away more of their money, by a higher percentage than the Democrats. Mean, greedy, selfish old Republicans. Imagine that.
Unless you can answer this question, it does seem to me that somebody's drawing sweeping conclusions from highly questionable (to put it mildly) data.
The study I linked was also done by state but took some important things into consideration.
If you read the study, you'd see that it was for charitable giving over and above taxes. IOW, it was personal charitable giving. What the study did was take taxes in all states into account - deduct them from income. Then it also took into account the cost of living for areas and equalized that. At that point, everyone's bottom line was equal. Nobody could argue about those two issues because they were nullified.
Then the study looked at charitable giving compared to resulting income and found that blue states were at least as high - and in some cases higher - than red states in charitable giving.
Minnie - I do agree that stats can be made to say what you want them to say. On the whole, I don't like 'em. But the info that conservatives have used on this charitable giving thing was mostly extrapolated from one or two studies and then repeated endlessly. The study I referenced has good points to it because it tries to weed out cost of living differences as well as differences in taxation rates in order to arrive at just what percentage of bottom-line, spendable income people (by state) donate to charity.
It's still just a damn statistic though. ;)
If I remember correctly, most conservative/red state giving is to churches, not charities, so a good portion of that money is used to fund the church rather than helping folks. Not that churches don't help people, but off the top of all that giving you have salaries, mortgage, utilities, etc before you even get to anything that is unrelated to the church and helps out the community.
On a side note, I also know quite a lot of liberal types who, like myself, refuse to take a tax deduction for any charitable giving -- depending on study methodology, people like me don't show up. Of course, that is anecdotal and worth exactly what you paid for it in terms of explaining anything. :winkgrin:
Beentheredonethat, the riot threats (and death threats) are a reality. Not surprised the lame stream media isn't reporting it much, but the threats are very real.
Loved Maher's comment about black people "coming to get" Romney voters. Yeah, he was probably joking. But it was a disgusting, tasteless comment. Can you IMAGINE if a republican said that? But, OK for Maher.
O is starting to make Carter look good.
Yeah, loved his "revenge" comment.