That is what happened with Bill Gates actually.  He wasn't even thinking of the poor until people he knew on the higher end asked him about it and questioned him about it.  Then, he felt social pressure so he decided to get into helping the poor.

I consider that just a nice way of saying

"If taxes were reduced and people would instead give more money charity like my very own organization Mercury One, I could profit twice!"

Is there some website that lists how american charity organizations are in practice spending their money btw? (I'm seriously impressed by the transparency of the presidential campaign financing, so I wonder if there is something similar)
I know that even most of the highly respected charity organizations are only spending a fraction of their donations on what people expect they're using the money for. I'm really curious to know how Mercury One is actually spending their money, given that the description on their website is so meaningless and even sounds like they are not actually giving money to anyone.

No.. it's an appeal to duty to your comminity...

The study suggests Atheists won't give much to charity or care until they have to stare directly into the face of the reality of the situation.  To me, that sounds like guilt.  You don't give until you feel bad.   It's not like these people don't know there are starving kids in africa.  They just don't care until it's thrown in there face.

I'd say it's more compassionate is going out of your way to help others and instead of only when such problems are at your doorstep and you feel to bad to let them go away.

Though really, I'd argue the main difference between compassion and guilt is that those who are compassionate are people with false senses of entitlement.

I told you where.  You have scientific journal access... so look it up.

"My Brothers Keeper"

Social Psychological and Personality Science journal

The May edition of this year.

Outside the fact that I just don't believe you....

You've decided to believe what one person tells you... based on... i'm not sure what.  Socially unacceptably by who... how is anyone ever going to know?

There are politiians who spent years trying to pass laws related to more government services etc... and it took DECADES for people to realize they didn't give anything to chariaty.  Nobody really even talks about the fact that Obama pretty much never never gave to charity until after he became a congressman.

It doesn't even matter half the time for politcians who everbody's eyes are on.  I doubt any random rich guy is worried about getting shunned by....

well I don't even know who.

I think it's mostly for show.

His radio show USED to be "Moderate-Right."

Then sometime after 9/11 he started talking about an apocolypse and all kinds of other crazy stuff.

Either 9/11 GREATLY effected his politics... like say Dennis Miller who went from Super Liberal to Super Conservative at the drop of a dime.

Or he saw where the money was and switched on air personalities.

Sucked too... his radioshow was decent before he went all super crackpot.

Well, to quote Forbes quoting a study I believe hasn't been released yet...

"Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity – so says Rice University Professor Vikas Mittal, co-author of the research paper, which will be published next month in the International Journal of Research in Marketing.

On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal."

"They found that Republicans were three times more likely to part with their money when Rebuilding Together was described as “supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities.” On the flip side, Democrats were twice as likely to kick in when the organization was described as “ensuring the protection of a home to every individual.”"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2012/06/01/giving-differently-liberals-and-conservatives-have-radically-different-views-of-charity/

Of course I can't speak for the veracity of the study since I haven't accessed it myself yet.  Though I wouldn't be surprised.

I'd say the most interesting question would be "How do you make it so liberals are more proactive in giving.

Perhaps money put towards hightlightling local charities in urban enviroments and creating easy way's to donate would be a good way to go.

Well I don't have it anymore sadly due to my school being greedy.

Looked it up on google though, and here's an excerpt:

""Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.""

Quite a stretch from what was said about the study in this thread earlier.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430140035.htm

In fact, it says almost the opposite.
"The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

It's more like "what they're TOLD to do", more than anything else.

Are you not in school anymore or something?  I don't really understand how a college could run without having scientific journal access.

I mean, finding and reading about 10-15 related articles is the minium for any kind of research paper.

Thats where large charities would allow overlap. You could cover every area as needed, because some could market better that they're able to distribute aid to the needy in the most impoverished (hint: least-funded) areas of the country.

I'd imagine that given the efficency of private charities, you could probably cut total redistributive spending by 50% overall (charity + government welfare combined) to achieve a similar level of care as we have today.