moonbattery.gif


« Keith Sterkeson, Pro-Choice Advocate | Main | Rules May Be Bent for Muslim Sex Offenders »


April 8, 2008

The Difference between Giving and Taking

Liberals are fond of sanctimoniously casting themselves as selflessly concerned about the plight of the less fortunate. Like everything from the Left that doesn't directly relate to a boot stamping on a human face, the pose is fake. George Will passes along a few facts from Arthur Brooks' book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism:

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).
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.

Only with an election coming up are liberal candidates Barack O'Bigot and Shrillary Rotten ostentatiously ramping up their charitable giving. From 1998 through 2006, limousine leftist Obama gave $150,000 to charity, much of it to his mentor Jeremiah Wright's repugnant Church of Anti-American Race Hate. With everyone looking, he shelled out $240,000 last year — not so much giving, as buying public relations. Likewise, the Clintons started giving big a year ago — mainly to their own foundation, which isn't passing along the money. But they'll eagerly give $billions, once they get their hands on the federal purse.

The moral difference between giving your own money and giving someone else's money is as vast as the difference between right and wrong.

obama_donation.jpg
It isn't often liberals will give their own money. Via KFYI.

On a tip from Byron.

Posted by Van Helsing at April 8, 2008 8:38 AM

Comments

Update:

Absolut vodka pulls ad showing California in Mexico

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080408/us_nm/mexico_absolut_dc

Posted by: Mick at April 8, 2008 9:32 AM

Once the ad hit MOONBATTERY.COM last week the protest really made a difference. Im still not buying their swill since I know they only pulled the ad because of the threatened boycott not because they were sorry they did it in the first place.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2008 10:09 AM

As for the whole charity issue between liberals and conservatives, its all been a well known fact for decades. Liberals are just gas bags who want cradle to grave socialism for the masses so they have to be dependent on government handouts (see Cuba, North Korea, soon enough Venezuela) while the party leadership amasses wealth and lives in luxury.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 8, 2008 10:14 AM

Some on the "left" consider taxes as a form of charitable giving. (Never mind that if you refuse to give, then the Man will come a-knockin' our your door).

Posted by: dpt at April 8, 2008 10:34 AM

In principle, I don't really oppose giving California to Mehico. Or Canada. Or France. Or... any takers?

Posted by: V the K at April 8, 2008 10:48 AM

wonder how many of their indigent friends and family members are on the payroll?

Posted by: nanc at April 8, 2008 11:32 AM

I recall that the Clinton's donated their underwear to a charitable organization. Does that count?

Posted by: baldeagle390 at April 8, 2008 11:37 AM

San Fran-freaks-co is going down the tubes big time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080408/ap_on_re_us/million_dollar_ramp;_ylt=AmLiWzAgEQZvqu1UwkSkFr4XIr0F

"Now a San Francisco supervisor, Alioto-Pier is running into similar trouble at City Hall, where her colleagues recently voted against a plan to lower the board president's elevated speaking dais so a ramp could be installed.

"When they voted against it, I looked at other supervisors and said 'Is this San Francisco, the most liberal city in the world?'" Alioto-Pier said. "They voted against accessibility upgrades?"

The perch is only reachable by walking up five stairs. Aaron Peskin, president of the Board of Supervisors, said he hasn't used it in three years, opting for a seat at a lower table that is wheelchair accessible. Yet he voted against making the changes sought by Alioto-Pier, saying the project's $1.1 million price tag is too much as the city faces a $338 million deficit"
______________________________________________

$338,000,000 in the hole? Is this any suprise since SF is a magnet for bums, crackheads and other losers looking for a handout? Though I do wonder with a deficit that big why not blow another million on a ramp to throne?

Posted by: General Jack D. Rippe at April 8, 2008 12:01 PM

Is it any surprise that a city run by Liberals has a $338 million deficit?

Posted by: Ludwig Van Beethoven at April 8, 2008 1:52 PM

Since many, many, (many) conservatives give anonymously (it's a Christian thing) the numbers for 'conservative giving' are underinflated.

Posted by: Jimbo at April 8, 2008 4:03 PM

It isn't really surprising. Leftists believe that it's the government's job to right financial wrongs. It's more fun to be moral with everyone's money than just with your own.

Posted by: avalon at April 8, 2008 7:03 PM

"Is it any surprise that a city run by Liberals has a $338 million deficit?"

And what is our NATIONAL deficit, Beethoven? Who's been running that?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 12:09 AM

meanwhile more crazy christian fundamentalists abuse their own children.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080409/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat;_ylt=Av2paiqPOspOhjPME_ZTCp0DW7oF

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 12:22 AM

Problem with the federal government is its become so bloated and filled with politicians trying to buy votes by creating new entitlement programs its beyond repair. The federal government, regardless of whether Dems or Republicans are in charge, is heavily liberal - its the nature of the beast. Even if you get a real conservative as President it wont matter - all he could do is veto spending bills and he cant do that forever. The reason why Bush's approval rating is down around 30% is that half of people (liberals) hate him because he is a Republican (despite Bush acting like a liberal half the time) --- half of the conservatives dont like him because he acts too liberal. At least conservatives dont like him on principal while liberals are just mindless robots who dont like him just because he has an (R) in front of his name. Even so, I would rather have had Bush in office than moonbats like Gore and the traitor Kerry. Same reason Ill vote for McCain this time - not because I think hes great, but simply because Obama and Clinton are worse. Thats what its come down to these days, voting for the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 4:38 AM

Anon,
The vast, VAST majority of Christians don't believe in polygamy. Even most Mormons (Which that group in question is an offshoot of) don't practice polygamy anymore. They are a fringe cult pretending to be Christian, but their teachings are far removed from the Bible. It would be bigoted and just plain stupid to try and use this as an excuse to criticize all Christians.

Posted by: Adam at April 9, 2008 6:15 AM

"meanwhile more crazy christian fundamentalists abuse their own children."

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 12:22 AM

These people are not obeying the teachings of Christ, so how are they "fundamentalist Christians". Show me one place in the Bible where Christ teaches that we are to marry children or have multiple wives! The way you twist the truth, to try to make it something else, is truly amazing. Why don't you go post your hate messages on Huffington Post with the rest of the angry, hateful liberal socialist morons.

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at April 9, 2008 6:48 AM

what makes you the expert on how to obey the teachings of Christ? They think nearly exactly like you do. They believe Jesus Christ is Lord, like you. They read and believe in the same holy book that you do. You probably agree with 95% of their views. So your interpretation of the Bible and some of Jesus's teachings is slightly different. These are devoutly religious people who believe that Jesus is lord. Sounds pretty Christian to me. These are YOUR fundamentalists. Own them.


I mean this is what you are asking the entire Muslim world to do because a few are willing to kill and die for their sick and ridiculous interpretations of their holy book.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 11:45 AM

Anon, you assume waaaay too much. I ask you to answer a question since you are such an authority and you respond with assumptions. The FLDS is not even close to being "Christlike", they are a Cult.

Stating anything about me on the issue isn't even the point. YOU DON'T KNOW ME, so you are ASSUMING. Assumption leads to misinformation and isn't stating any kind of fact. Period.
If you are going to run your keyboard stating things as fact, then quote the scriptures that demonstrates your point or name your sources of information. Otherwise don't talk about something you know nothing about. It just becomes obvious that you are an ignorant person when you can't answer a question with facts and evidence.

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at April 9, 2008 1:08 PM

According to the "logic" employed by our resident trolls, a person who sprays a school yard with machine gun fire while saying "I'm doing this in the name of Buddha!" is a Buddhist and following the teachings of Buddha, and must be "owned" by other Buddhists. Yeah...

Posted by: PabloD at April 9, 2008 9:18 PM

"According to the "logic" employed by our resident trolls, a person who sprays a school yard with machine gun fire while saying "I'm doing this in the name of Buddha!" is a Buddhist and following the teachings of Buddha, and must be "owned" by other Buddhists. Yeah..."

this is exactly what you criticize and demand from the entire Muslim world for the few willing to kill and die for their religion!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 11:58 PM

as far as I'm concerned Christianity as a whole is nothing more than a new-fangled cult.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2008 3:30 AM

"Is it any surprise that a city run by Liberals has a $338 million deficit?"

And what is our NATIONAL deficit, Beethoven? Who's been running that?

"Who's been running that?" Why that's simple! The answer is the two major political parties and their stooges in Congress. We keep putting these bilious thieves back in there. We have no one to blame but ourselves. But fear not, my friend, the American people will shortly reap what they have sown.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2008 4:54 AM

"Is it any surprise that a city run by Liberals has a $338 million deficit?"

And what is our NATIONAL deficit, Beethoven? Who's been running that?

"Who's been running that?" Why that's simple! The answer is the two major political parties and their stooges in Congress. We keep putting these bilious thieves back in there. We have no one to blame but ourselves. But fear not, my friend, the American people will shortly reap what they have sown.

Posted by: Lamb Chop's Lunch Date at April 11, 2008 4:54 AM

Lamb Chop's Lunch Date! I like it. :-)

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at April 11, 2008 3:08 PM