EdHieron said: There's no proof that if the size of government is shrunk that people will give more to charity. Plus, the kind of giving Beck has in mind is giving to churches which would probably translate into those that receive charity from them being more likely to feel a need to join them or be beholden to them.
umm... except the within the first 24 hours of launching this "charity campaign" his audience donated MEALS, that doesnt really have anything to do with churches.
even if it did, when people give charitable donations to churches, that mostly goes to things like church funded food pantries, shelters, clothes and stuff.
Yeah, but there's the fact that his audience is mainly made up of Fundamentalist religious people that will no doubt take an opportunuty to share their beliefs with whomever they give food to, and people that receive benefits from such church funded businesses generally seem to be aware of the fact that it's churches contributing to their well being and, no doubt, there are usually placards in support of church ideologies hanging on the walls in such establishments, and the fact that they might not be so generous with those that they perceive to be non-believers or those not kowtowing to the churches' party lines see the Catholics refusal to give out birth control devices as called for in Obama's healthcare plan.
And at the root of all this is a plan to strengthen the churches.
killerzX said: in less than 24 hours after the episode of GBTV (which is a paid internet TV service, not something you get on regular TV) his audience raised money for more than 500,000 meals for the needy. that was in less than 1 day. his audience is some of the most charitable in the world. conservatives usually are much more charitable than other groups, like left leaning groups
I highly doubt that because conseratives for the most parts are nothing more then talk. I don't know of one conservative billionare that is willing to give up his entire fortune like Bill Gates.
conservatives give about 30% more than liberals, while also making less money on average
killerzX said: in less than 24 hours after the episode of GBTV (which is a paid internet TV service, not something you get on regular TV) his audience raised money for more than 500,000 meals for the needy. that was in less than 1 day. his audience is some of the most charitable in the world. conservatives usually are much more charitable than other groups, like left leaning groups
I highly doubt that because conseratives for the most parts are nothing more then talk. I don't know of one conservative billionare that is willing to give up his entire fortune like Bill Gates.
killerzX said: in less than 24 hours after the episode of GBTV (which is a paid internet TV service, not something you get on regular TV) his audience raised money for more than 500,000 meals for the needy. that was in less than 1 day. his audience is some of the most charitable in the world. conservatives usually are much more charitable than other groups, like left leaning groups
I highly doubt that because conseratives for the most parts are nothing more then talk. I don't know of one conservative billionare that is willing to give up his entire fortune like Bill Gates.
How exactly does anything in that article apply to what I have said it doesn't mention any billionares
the bolded.
it very much applies, did you not read what you wrote.
as for the billionaire thing, i dont know either, in fact i cant think of many high profile billionaire conservatives. (though not a consevative, is mitt romney a billionaire?)
killerzX said: in less than 24 hours after the episode of GBTV (which is a paid internet TV service, not something you get on regular TV) his audience raised money for more than 500,000 meals for the needy. that was in less than 1 day. his audience is some of the most charitable in the world. conservatives usually are much more charitable than other groups, like left leaning groups
I highly doubt that because conseratives for the most parts are nothing more then talk. I don't know of one conservative billionare that is willing to give up his entire fortune like Bill Gates.
How exactly does anything in that article apply to what I have said it doesn't mention any billionares
the bolded.
it very much applies, did you not read what you wrote.
as for the billionaire thing, i dont know either, in fact i cant think of many high profile billionaire conservatives. (though not a consevative, is mitt romney a billionaire?)
Its better to give money with a open heart anyway. Most conservatives give money out of guilt.
killerzX said:in less than 24 hours after the episode of GBTV (which is a paid internet TV service, not something you get on regular TV) his audience raised money for more than 500,000 meals for the needy. that was in less than 1 day. his audience is some of the most charitable in the world. conservatives usually are much more charitable than other groups, like left leaning groups
I highly doubt that because conseratives for the most parts are nothing more then talk. I don't know of one conservative billionare that is willing to give up his entire fortune like Bill Gates.
How exactly does anything in that article apply to what I have said it doesn't mention any billionares
the bolded.
it very much applies, did you not read what you wrote.
as for the billionaire thing, i dont know either, in fact i cant think of many high profile billionaire conservatives. (though not a consevative, is mitt romney a billionaire?)
I don't believe Romney is. The Koch Brothers seem to be the stereotypical conservative billionaires
There needs to be an increase in charitable giving even if you don't get rid of government spending in my opinion.
I wonder if you would see it though.
In general it seems to be shown that when people think welfare is primarily the roll of the government they're more likely to be content not giving to charity and saying "Oh well the government has failed those people not me."
Surely you'd see an increase from the other side of some sort... I wonder if it would be enough. Charity is a LOT more efficient so there is a chance but... I imagine there would still be gaps in the system based on area.
I personally am suspect that giving will magically increase to offset spending cuts, if there isn't a demonstration now, with where people are, that they are interested in giving more. People would be just as inclined to spend the money on themselves, if they get tax cuts (general) if the money would go to help the poor more, or not, offsetting the loss of government spending. One thing charities do have a concern about, is if you mess around with the inheritance tax, causing there to be none, they there will be a lost of an incentive to have people set up trusts where the charity gets money. Flat out cutting on that end could have a very bad effect. So, the end result would be a discouraging of people to do charitable giving with their inheritance.
Maybe some other factors can be looked at to show that, if you shrink government, the citizens would pick up the slack. Or, if this doesn't happen, that the poor and people on welfare should really not get any help at all. In other words, arguments made in something like this video:
I'd say that's really just if your a pessmist who believe more liberal people don't really care about the poor.
It's not something I particularly believe.
People who are more against welfare are more likely to donate more money. I would say because they believe government welfare is inefficent or wholey useless.
Therefore they pickup there own spending to "fill in the gap."
I'd think with a removal of welfare spending. Liberals would take that tax money, or at least SOME of it and "fill in" that gap they beleive was lost by said repeals... as would conservatives who believe welfare helps, but isn't a COMPLETE waste.
I think that's what explains the "gap" that seems to be found in charitable giving that others have characterized as the "Support for more charity legislation" being equated to actual charity giving.
I don't think it's the support, so much as an evaluation on how much said efforts are already helping.
Afterall... if you take two people who are exactly the same, except one thinks his goverment is doing ok at feeding the poor but could do better... you'd be giving less then the guy who thinks the goverment is wasting 90% of that money through government bueracracy and not doing much good at all....
killerzX said:in less than 24 hours after the episode of GBTV (which is a paid internet TV service, not something you get on regular TV) his audience raised money for more than 500,000 meals for the needy. that was in less than 1 day. his audience is some of the most charitable in the world. conservatives usually are much more charitable than other groups, like left leaning groups
I highly doubt that because conseratives for the most parts are nothing more then talk. I don't know of one conservative billionare that is willing to give up his entire fortune like Bill Gates.
How exactly does anything in that article apply to what I have said it doesn't mention any billionares
the bolded.
it very much applies, did you not read what you wrote.
as for the billionaire thing, i dont know either, in fact i cant think of many high profile billionaire conservatives. (though not a consevative, is mitt romney a billionaire?)
I don't believe Romney is. The Koch Brothers seem to be the stereotypical conservative billionaires
Romey has close to $250 million dollars in personal wealth. Also agree with you on the Koch Brother the only thing they use their wealth for is to gain more power so that they can make more money.
There needs to be an increase in charitable giving even if you don't get rid of government spending in my opinion.
I wonder if you would see it though.
In general it seems to be shown that when people think welfare is primarily the roll of the government they're more likely to be content not giving to charity and saying "Oh well the government has failed those people not me."
Surely you'd see an increase from the other side of some sort... I wonder if it would be enough. Charity is a LOT more efficient so there is a chance but... I imagine there would still be gaps in the system based on area.
Very true. I also believe that if the goverment was smaller it would cost less to run and therefor we would be taxed less. If that happens we all would have more money in our pockets and would be willing to give more to charities. It's hard for a family to give, even if they want to, when the goverments forces them to pay up. And it's easy for those families to figure what the goverment takes and parces for relief is good enough.
Right, but with freedom to give people can choose not to, or worse still, choose to give to counterproductive causes, like that sexist "Center for Military Preparedness" which bases its plank on trying to keep women out of the military.
Are you telling me you want less freedom instead of more? Sure there are plenty of causes that I don't agree with, but I don't have to give them my money. I disagree with a lot of what the goverment spends my money on and I have no choice in the matter. Right now my money goes to welfare and those you collect it don't even have to have a drug test, unlike many American workers. At least with private charities I can choose which ones to give to, and I can even donate to a food bank with actual food rather than cut a tax payment check hoping it is used for the hungry.
When it comes to freedom I always want more, never less so long as it doesn't put anyone in danger.
By the way. I still say replacing welfare with a negative income tax for all would be best.
It would
A)Cut out a LOT of the inefficiency that currently exists in government.
B) Prevent slips in the cracks like would happen without it.
C) Prevent slips in the cracks that happen now WITH government Welfrae.
D) Essentially ensure that only those who fail are those who "deserve" too because they will still fail with their money. (Blowing it on drugs or gambling or what have you.)
