[Urbanpdx]

I know this is off topic but I thougt a reminder might help. Don't forget to donate to your favorite charity before the end of the year for a tax deduction. If you don't itemize, give anyway. It feels good and does a lot of good.

We often argue about politics here and conservatives tend to give more than liberals which most of you are (even though they make less money).

I am neither liberal or conservative but, like most of us here, I care about our community.

Don't know who to give to? Here are several that got my cash this year.

C.R.A.C.K.
Dress for Success
Wheels to Wealth
Salvation Army
The Children’s Scholarship Fund-Portland

Happy new year.
:cheers:

[Dr. Smoke]

Ah, more horseshit from you.

[WonderlandPark]

neither liberal or conservative.....but libertarian...

Libertarians are about: me, me, my money, me, mine, my land, me, me, me, I don't give a damn about schools, me, me, me, government is all evil, me, me, everyone should home school, me, me, my house, me, no taxes, me, me, me, so what if I clear cut my land, me, me, me, me, me, its mine, me, eliminate the federal reserve, me, me, me, mine, me, I am all self sufficient, me, me, me, I don't even use public roads, me, me, it's all about, me, me, income tax is illegal, me, me, me, me, me.....

[roner]

Man, I thought he was actually sincere on this one. Maybe you guys should cut him a little slack ever now and again.

And urbanlife, if you want to post about charity, it's best to not mention anything about politics. Just my two cents....

[tworivers]

We often argue about politics here and conservatives tend to give more than liberals which most of you are (even though they make less money).

More snarky than sincere, and typically troll-ish. Mr. urbanpdx (not urbanlife, roner) just can't resist riling up the people using this forum, even when he's posting totally off-topic and ostensibly feel-good crap about trickling his extra cash down to the Slovenly Sloths Who Feed At The Trough Of Charity Because They Are Too Lazy To Get A Decent Job And Create Some Good Ol' American Wealth. Give me a break.

We need some C.R.A.C.K. moderation, Bond.

[MarkDaMan]

conservatives tend to give more than liberals which most of you are (even though they make less money).

I guess that would be true if you are counting 'donations' to the GOP to run their scare and smear campaigns...but I don't think when most organizations get money they are tracking whether conservatives somehow significantly give more time and money to reputable organizations such as Mercy Corps, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Stem Cell Research Foundation than liberals...usually, we in society call people that donate pieces of themselves, good Americans...not everything is about party...sometimes it's about the Good of the Country and the World.

[Urbanpdx]

First of all it was sincere. Sorry to put that Democan vs. Republicrat stuff in there.

I am not a conservative but I have read that they give more blood, more money, more time, etc. to charity than liberals. This is probably because liberals expect the government to do the heavy lifting and I know that most here are liberal.

Yes I am Libertarian and remember what Adam Smith wrote :

Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence.

[MarkDaMan]

oh lord, a quote from Adam Smith...if that's your religion urbanpdx, great, I myself don't quote passages from Jesus on this board, or as a liiiberal, JFK speeches...

I'm not quite sure why this thread is still open. I might be on a limb, but I just don't buy into the, it was sincere, yet twice now has made comments about conservatives vs. liberal, after he himself just apologized for doing it.

Sorry to put that Democan vs. Republicrat stuff in there

one paragraph below that:

they give more blood, more money, more time, etc. to charity than liberals. This is probably because liberals expect the government to do the heavy lifting and I know that most here are liberal.

what a flipping joke...

[Urbanpdx]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

[MarkDaMan]

You obviously aren't serious about your apology for bringing politics into this thread about charity since you continue to press the case...but I'll look at the article anyway.

so...

you're kidding right? ABC, the company that ran the skewed 9/11 "docuDRAMA" as your objective source?

from the article:

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

What isn't looked into is the daily pedestrian traffic in and out of the two stores, whether or not religious affiliation (the Salvation Army) has to do with whether or not people are willing to drop money in the can, day/amount of time/even the weather could have skewed those results. Surveying which can in two cities collect more money is hardly a scientific study. What we call it is spin...they are trying to sensationalize a story through their little study...poor S.D. is so generous...those latte drinking liberals in SF, well...they are liberal. And, why not try a WalMart in SF to WalMart in S.D. comparison? Since SF is only 14% churchgoers, shouldn't the WalMart in SF reflect those same statistics? I betcha they did fill the bucket at a WalMart in SF and because that ruined their agenda, they parked themselves outside of a Macy's the second day.

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

so how many of those states went 'blue' in electing local representatives in Nov '06, or how many have a democrat governor? How much tithing or dropping bills in the collection plate is considered charity?

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

I'd donate blood but my blood is considered unnecessary because I've had sex with a man at least once since 1976. I've also convinced my father (conservative) and many other people that giving blood while the Red Cross continues this blatant discrimination against gays should either be accompanied by protest, or protest by not donating (young black heterosexuals have the highest rate of new infections in the US but they aren't denied the right to donate blood).

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

hmmm...can we have some stats to back up how they came up with that poll? Did it go something like, "Oh, you're donating money, well do you believe the government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves? No, okay...check..."

Workers at the meat packing plant where Lau works make on average around $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees here than anywhere else.

again, an organization that some consider slanted might not play well in liberal cities. United Way has been supportive of the Boy Scouts, certainly a controversial decision in light of their 'morally straight' policy, and many cities across America ended their city contributions to United Way because of their unwillingness to end contributions to the Scouts organization. United Way has alse been mired in a 9/11 controversy over paying the legal-aid bills for suspected terrorists, or even local controversy as the Oregonian pointed out in this article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1158202512260660.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

However, might I add that Goodwill, non-controversial or religious oriented, has stronger donations in the Portland region than any other region.

and then there is their own contridictions:

The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be.

"The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor," says Brooks. "The middle class give the least."

I can't believe I just wasted my time on this...

[Dr. Smoke]

A Libertarian, is a neoconservative who is too ashamed to call himself a Republican anymore due to their astounding fiscal irresponsibility and corruption.

If Libertarians had their way, we'd take down all stop signs, stoplights, and sewer systems as 'unwarranted government interference' in our lives. We'd have to pay per call for police protection and ambulance service, and without a credit card, no service. Fact is, the emergence of megacompanies, oligopolies, unfettered business corruption, and concentration of wealth (http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm), caused the imbalances which directly led to Herbert Hoover's Great Depression. And FDR's progressive polices and moderate regulation are what recovered our economy and in fact built this nation to greatness.

But concentration of wealth today is far worse than the 34% in the hands of the top 5% right before the Crash. Did you know that today the wealthiest 5% of Americans own 60% of the nation's wealth? And that the bottom 40% of Americans own just 0.3%? This is a very imbalanced and unstable situation (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/53555).

It is a fact that the strong always use their strength to crush the weaker, to eliminate competition rather than foster it. The strong become stronger, until we reach the only possible mathematical outcome, where you depend for your job, your car, your house, your food, your news, your entertainment, your life, on one or two ultracorporations. Piss off WalmartExxxonFluorMicrosoftGMUSATodayKKRSony, and your life is over (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30157).

Libertarianism is caveman economics, and we had advanced far beyond this although we have now significantly regressed (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30200). Sure Libertarianism's simple and easy to understand, but it is not what built our nation. Every single other developed nation in the world can afford to give all their citizens free university (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29531) for the motivated, free medical care (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf), and a dignified retirement for their seniors (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/35839), and still often run a budget surplus. Yet our 'rich nation' can't afford this?!

Libertarianism is a dangerous philosophy (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30267) in an advanced world economy. Bond is not going to like my cynicism, but conservatives comprise some of the very top 1% in wealth plus most of the vast lower working-class in this nation. The welders, the factory workers, the truck drivers are conservative, and they are the ones who loudest proclaim (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30774) the rich should get more tax cuts, to give people the impression that they are amongst the rich. Here's a clue UrbanPDX: the wealthy learned a long time ago to NOT publicly advocate in their own radical self-interest, as it pisses everybody else off. This is why I know you are lower working-class.

[seaskyfan]

It's important to see what is included in "charitable giving" in any comparisons like that. Typically it includes gifts to churches which are higher among poorer people and more conservative people and which constitute 3/4 of all charitable giving. Here's the source on the 3/4 number and an interesting article about giving patterns for folks who itemize from the Chronicle of Philanthropy: http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v15/i14/14000601.htm

[mhays]

Liberals are more willing to be taxed so that governments can provide services.

Much of the conservative giving is to churches, not 501(c)(3) organizations. If you only count the latter, I bet liberals give more. Churches are good at sucking huge amounts of money out of people.

I'd be shocked if people in South Dakota, where people say hi every time they pass each other, wouldn't donate more than big city folks who are used to ignoring each other.

[Urbanpdx]

From that article:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

I am hoping that attacking me is not in lou of donating...

Wow, it is amazing how these attacks can be so vicous. I am for freedom and responsiblity. Look up Libralism in the dictionary and it is way more in line with my beliefs than what I hear from you "progressives".

From Websters: Liberalism:...a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

It just seems to me that it is a bit hypocritical to belive in freedom in some things and not most things. Democrats believe we should be free socially but not economically, Republicans belive we should be free economically but not socially. Libertarians believe that we can't seperate social and economic freedom, we should strive for freedom in all of our lives.

[seaskyfan]

"That article" means the ABC one - you're quoting the guy who wrote the book mentioned in the story. You might want to include that, I don't think folks find him a compelling source.

[Dr. Smoke]

Apparently Urbanpdx, you did not understand any of my post above.

I guess I've wasted my time.

[Urbanpdx]

Oh, I understood it Smoke. It just makes your name here make a lot of sense.

[PacificNW]

My two cents: If a person can give to a charitable organization that is very cool but I find it in poor taste for a person to actually list the organizations he donated.....It is sorta like bragging and seems to be the wrong motivation for giving. I am probably the only one who feels this way but I feel my list is private and personal.

[Dr. Smoke]

Urbanpdx, it doesn't appear that you got it:

I demonstrated very clearly how --zero regulation-- allows the Strong to take from everyone else, and crush competition leading to monopoly, and then you say:
It just seems to me that it is a bit hypocritical to belive (sic) in freedom in some things and not most things. Democrats believe we should be free socially but not economically, Republicans belive (sic) we should be free economically but not socially. Libertarians believe that we can't seperate (sic) social and economic freedom, we should strive for freedom in all of our lives.
It just doesn't appear that you got it. 'Nuff said.


PacificNW, I agree completely. I was raised in the old German tradition of secret giving. First of all, it's bad luck to tell. Second it can embarrass the recipient. Third, to tell appears to be self-aggrandizement, and is unChristian.

[oregone]

Oregonians can also donate $50 to a PAC or political campaign, then get the money back on your Oregon taxes. To quote a partisan website I sometimes visit, "To put it another way: By donating $50 to a political campaign of your choice, you can reduce your taxes or increase your refund by that same $50. That's right: it's a full 100% credit, not a deduction."
Probably shouldn't tell you where my $50 went to, though.

[Urbanpdx]

I demonstrated very clearly how --zero regulation-- allows the Strong to take from everyone else, and crush competition leading to monopoly, and then you say:

You most certainly did not demonstrate that very clearly. Monopoly, even in places where it is legal, does not result in the strong "taking from everyone else". The only exception is the government.

[Dr. Smoke]

You think monopolies are not comprised of the strong?
Or you think that monopolies do not take from everyone else?

I should have thought that the fact of a monopoly being comprised of the Strong, and that they take from everyone else disproportionate to the benefit they give... is self-evident. They teach the effect of monopolies in every accredited B-school in the nation. There's a long history of monopolistic misbehavior, from the 1800's forward. That is why we (used to) have the Sherman AntiTrust Act.

It goes without saying that in a Libertarian system, monopolies would be legal. And it should be clear that without regulation, capital agglomerates into ever larger and fewer piles. So complete monopoly, and economic enslavement of the populous by the very few, is the only mathematical conclusion. A New Feudalism. Congratulations conservatives! You have ruined America!

[roner]

Mr. urbanpdx (not urbanlife, roner)

opps! sorry about that.

[Dr. Smoke]

(Where did he go?)

(And what the heck is a 'pdx' anyway? 'Portland {something}', I gather?)

[roner]

It's Portland's airport code, like SFO or LAX.

[Urbanpdx]

You think monopolies are not comprised of the strong?
Or you think that monopolies do not take from everyone else?

I should have thought that the fact of a monopoly being comprised of the Strong, and that they take from everyone else disproportionate to the benefit they give... is self-evident. They teach the effect of monopolies in every accredited B-school in the nation. There's a long history of monopolistic misbehavior, from the 1800's forward. That is why we (used to) have the Sherman AntiTrust Act.

It goes without saying that in a Libertarian system, monopolies would be legal. And it should be clear that without regulation, capital agglomerates into ever larger and fewer piles. So complete monopoly, and economic enslavement of the populous by the very few, is the only mathematical conclusion. A New Feudalism. Congratulations conservatives! You have ruined America!

I still dont understand.

Other than government, give me an example of the monopoly of which you speak.

[Dr. Smoke]

Thank you roner.

Urbanpdx, here's a back-of-the-envelope explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly), to save me some trouble. I just hate to repeat myself over, and over, and over, for every uneducated conservative who happens to come along. They mention the Carnegie Steel Company, Standard Oil, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, DeBeers, and Microsoft. Other examples I can cite are J. P. Morgan's railroad company, and the old Bell Telephone.

This problem has been fixed and then re-broken, time and time again throughout history. Republicans have now broken it (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52984) again --among many other things-- such as rescission of equal time provisions by the FCC which directly lead to the rise of right-wing radio and the polarization of America, the undermining of the progressive tax system, the short-circuiting of the Bill of Rights (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27610), the non-enforcement of anti-trust, and I hate to think what is coming (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28637) because of it.

Just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it's not true; just because you haven't learned a lesson, doesn't mean it's invalid. Your kids will pay the price, and they will hate you for it.