None of that is true.

Taxes are deductable... but that doesn't really do anything for you.

Maybe you don't have any dealing with charity and taxes... but tax deductions never benefit the person giving the donation.

If you donate 100 dollars... to charity for example... all it means is you don't have to pay taxes on that 100 dollars.

So if you pay a 30% tax on that 100 dollars.  You've still lost 70 dollars by donating to charity.

Taxes aren't a good sign of charity because... well EVERYONE has to pay them.  Personal donations come out of your pocket and ALWAYS cost more... and considering the fact that liberals on average made more then conservatives... it's the liberals who'd benefit more.

Additionally conservatives gave a lot more in non-deductable ways.  For example giving money to the homeless.

People often talk about "Dropping down to a lower tax bracket"  However there is no such thing as "Dropping down to a lower tax bracket" because income is taxed regularly.  The first 9,000 you make is taxed the same,  whether you make 9,000 or 100,000 thousand... etc.

When you combine that with the fact that liberals make more then conservatives, but conservatives donate 30% more on average... it's pretty clear.

Also... private charities always CRUSH government work when it comes to provided chariable services in effectiveness.

Medicare and Medicaid are horrible.

Taxes aren't a good measure of charity because they aren't charity... they're mandatory for everybody, and the taxes you pay may have been caused by someone else.  Charity... is a good sense of charity because... you are ALWAYS losing money by personal choice.

I said 'accurate' measurement.  Obviously, if someone donates $100 and they get $50 back, they really only gave away $50.

Paying taxes isn't a sign of charity, but supporting tax increases is.  If a person wants to pay $3,000 more in taxes and wants public healthcare, then that person is being very charitable.

Government spending on charity is much more effective than private charities, I can't even fathom why anyone would argue against this.  Public healthcare gives everyone healthcare while private charities are unable to provide these services.  Don't even argue against this until you have an example of a charity getting enough donations to pay for the healthcare of an entire country.

Sure it is, you just need to take the deductables out of the equation... which is already done based on the facts that liberals make money, and therefore their deductions would be higher.

As for supporting tax increases being a sign of charity... i'd say it all depends on who the tax increases are meant to be on.  When have you ever seen a group support higher taxes on themselves?  It's usually rare... and if they felt that way really... why aren't they donating that excess they think they should be paying every year?  Is the thought "They government should be taxing me an additional grand a year to help the poor... but screw it!  HD TV!

That is the biggest liberal disconnect.  It's like support for an unrealized law actually HURTS the people the unrealized law is supposed to help because some people see charities as old fashioned relics or something.

As for the third paragraph... you aren't making any sense in it.  Being able to get more funds doesn't equal effectiveness.    Spending 50,000 and treating 100,000 people is more effective then spending 500,000 and treating 500,000 people.  Just because it CAN do something doesn't mean it's effective at doing it.

I mean, despite our broken healthcare system, surivival rates and other REAL healthcare statistics are at the top of the charts.

No, liberals what to help poor people. I want to help everyone.

For example, if your a rich white middle age man, what do liberals want to do to help him?

Kasz, you are incorrect agian.

Charity cannot be quantified by monetary donations.  For example, a rich coal mining CEO donated money to my university for the construction of a new building, but he required that the name of the building promote the coal industry (to counter the push for green energy).  Lets say he donated a a million dollars and after taxes had a net loss of $600,000, but how much value do you put on advertising and promotion of self interests?  Surely a person who anonymously gives a donation is 'giving more' than a person who gives the same amount but wants recognization and to promote self-interests.  So again, donations to charity are not an accurate measure of caring.

Concerning taxes, liberals want a progressive tax system that increases taxes on the rich, yet liberals also happen to have more money on average than conservatives.

Also, you failed to bring up an example of private donations being as effective as government funding.  Which, I might add, is impossible since the government has much more resourcess and is better able to pursue charitable actions than a private charity could ever hope for.

Give him rights.  Give him rights to decide with his wife wether or not to have an abortion, give him rights to decide who he can marry, give him rights so that the government can't spy on him without just cause, give him rights to worship or not to worship any religion he wants, and so forth.

I am not a liberal, and I want to give him those rights too.

The problem I have with the current concept of liberal, is to go back to your example of giving my mother money for a hospital bill.

The way to equate the liberal idea of paying for her medical bill, is to break into a rich persons house, steal the money, and give it to my mother.

You want to "help" a group of people you don't know, but you want to do it at the expense of another group of people you don't know. I want to help everyone at the expense of no one.

All the rights you above mention don't take away from anyone else's rights. Most liberal programs however, do.

Ok you fail to say that what it means to be a liberal or conservative now is alot differant from what it was then. The southern states were predominantly Democrat at the time now they are Repuplicans. So trying to manipulate fact won't work here buddy.

Remember everyone should read the research paper kindly posted by Kasz!!!

I would define you as a classical liberal.

Sorry, but that is bull. Harry Truman was already pushing for socialized medicine in the 40's and 50's. The Democratic Party had been very liberal for the vast majority of the 20th century.