a non-existant image?

Not a better job then government.  A better job then the US government.  The US government is far to tied to special interests on both sides to get anything done.  The two party system screws over the average person too much.

Huh?  When I click on it I get a link to the charity index... and then a picture of charitable donations in relation to the wealth of the state.

In general it goes like this

1-25 went to Bush in the Bush vs Kerry Election.

26 Is Kerry

27-28 is Bush

29-37 Kerry

38-40 Bush

41-42 Kerry

43 Bush

44-50 Kerry.

Conservative states give a much higher percentage of their money to charity then democratic ones.

Also although it's a longer and more philosophical arguement I would argue that welfare generally hurts the development of people as regards to giving of themselves to others.

As can be seen by the chart above in regards to US states... as well as the fact that the US gives a higher percentage of money to charity per GDP then any other country.

The Us gives 1.7% of GDP with the next biggest country being the UK who gives .7% GDP.

France... who has one of the more socialist governments in the world is also the stingiest giving only .14% of GDP.  (These are just numbers for individuals by the way.)

Well if the system in those countries do a better job of supporting the poor then there is little reason to give

How?  Does France having a lot of Welfare make Zimbabwe any less poor?

A lot of charitable giving is at home... not all of it though.  France's number is ridiculiously low.

It's easier to ignore people suffering if you believe it's their governments failing them... and not people who have more then they need.

It's likely one reason why conservatives donate more money to charity.

But would the average zimbabwean be any better off if the french donated 10 times as much?  Or would onlythose at the top in Zimbabwe benefit?  The question isn't jsut how much money gets injected into a country, but how that money is spent/distributed, and what systems exist to make sure it doesn't just make the rich, richer.

Actually a lot of the charities that give to zimbabwe work well.

There are a lot of great international charities out there.  They aren't hard to find.

And... as stated above... the charity facts look very grim for the democratic states in the US.

To pretend that right wingers don't care about the poor is a funny arguement to make considering the above chart and data.

One would wonder how much charity would make up, if those crying charity doesn't work would donate as much as those that say it does.

Or even how much governmental welfare could be implemented if those who say they aren't being taxed enough put that money they weren't being taxed to good causes.

Except Zimbawe still has massive unemployment and hyperinflation and other economic problems, the charity isn't doing much good over there.

Never said they don't care, I said there are better ways than conservatives know how to do

So don't bother?  That's twisted logic.  Besides Zimbabwe is just one of many places that could use money and charity.  The charity burdens in Europeon countries aren't even close to being met domestically.

US charities do work, quite well.  Yet the liberals of this country just don't give as much.

There are tons of international charities that work really well... and that do a LOT of good.