digg

Join DiggAbout

ABC News : John Stossel : Cheap on Charity watch!

youtube.com — Another report on Who Really Cares. They compare South Dakota and San Fransisco and who contributes more ?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stevanoski, on 05/04/2008, -87/+81Liberals talk a good game but in their heart they despise the poor.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 05/04/2008, -33/+11NOT BARACK OBOMBA!!111!!11!11!!1!!11!!

      /sarcasm
    • KingGorilla, on 05/04/2008, -16/+12what about poor liberals? They must hate themselves
      • chriskzoo, on 05/04/2008, -12/+20No, they just want handouts.
        • ZeroIce, on 05/04/2008, -3/+8LIVING WAGE! LIVING WAGE!
        • BabyWookie, on 05/04/2008, -5/+5@Zerolonce:

          Don't get crazy now. You can't expect Mr. Big Businessman to have multiple mansions, a fleets of luxury sports cars, a yacht, AND pay his workers a fair wage and offer good medical benefits. That would be just insane. I mean, what would he do without that private jet?
    • dolvlo, on 05/04/2008, -39/+15Yeah, I'm sure Karl Marx hates the poor, you mental midget. Seriously, did you even think before you wrote that? Probably not, you're just one of those people who blame everything on "those damn LIBERALS". Become an hero, this world would be better off without you.
      • NSResponder, on 05/04/2008, -11/+16"I'm sure Karl Marx hates the poor"

        Karl Marx hated *everybody*. Just look at the body count from his followers, you pinko *****.

        -jcr
        • BabyWookie, on 05/04/2008, -7/+6Jesus must have hated everybody too, right? I mean, just look at the Crusades, The Insqusition, the Bosnian Genocide...
          • NSResponder, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4"Jesus must have hated everybody too, right? "

            Heh.. Thought you'd get me with that little zinger, didn't you?

            Try again, sunshine. I'm an atheist.

            -jcr
          • BabyWookie, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1@NSResponder:

            The comment still stands, you objectivist toolbag. It doesn't neccessarily take an evil person for people to do evil things in his name. Every belief system can be twisted like that. BTW, kiss my Communist ass, you fascist *****.
          • NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1 "kiss my Communist ass"

            Since you clowns lost the cold war, I'll never be in the position of having to obey you. Try to work it out in therapy.

            -jcr
          • BabyWookie, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1@NSResponder

            It really doesn't bother me at all. The USSR was a very misguided early experiment in building Communism on a local level. What most people fail to realize, is that the Soviet never came even close to implementing a Communist system. It was simply an authoritarian state with a centrally-planned economy, which tried to build itself up towards Communism and failed. Yet, Communism is much larger than any country or government. Earth being united under Communism is a historic inevitability - a side-effect of human progress. Evil, scared or misguided people like you can try to deny and delay it, but in the end, you will fail and the human race will shed the chains of inequality, the tyrrany of the dollar, the parasitism of capitalism, the evil of individualism and will have its Golden Age.
          • NSResponder, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1" Communism is a historic inevitability"

            Funny, but isn't that what we heard from the first days of Lenin's putsch until the collapse of the Soviet empire?

            The history of the human race is progress towards individual liberty. That progress isn't steady, because there are pathetic misanthropes like you who crave power over others, but we're getting there.

            "the evil of individualism"

            Heh.. It's not that often that a commie is quite that blatant in showing his hatred of people in general. Thanks for serving as an object lesson in depravity.

            -jcr
    • se1zure, on 05/04/2008, -24/+8the reason the middle class doesn't give more and the poor do has to do just with that situation. The poor are poor because they cannot properly manage their money. THe middle class realize that giving too much money would make them poor. The rich have enugh to not worry about it either way.
    • NSResponder, on 05/04/2008, -17/+7Despising the poor is only the tip of the iceberg. When you get right down to it, pinkos are misanthropes.

      -jcr
    • rheaume, on 05/04/2008, -13/+12Already had blocked you ages ago but really, go ***** yourself. You tell yourself what ever you have to to sleep at night, while your days are filled with ***** on the poor and immigrants. Lucky for us, most people are too smart to believe your tripe.
    • pintomp3, on 05/04/2008, -7/+20it's interesting he used the salvation army as one of the criteria. they have a well known anti-gay policy. does he really expect a lot of contributions to them from people in san francisco? he set up the parameters of his "study" to ensure the outcome would fit his agenda.
      • BabyWookie, on 05/04/2008, -2/+4Exactly. It would only have been fair if the charity that they tracked in South Dakota was the Planned Parenthood, PETA or another organization that the locals would most likely strongly disagree with.
      • germ5150, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2The Salvation Army part was an ad-hoc test. The actual data used from all registered charities in those states. You are correct in your assumption that we can derive something about liberals from this.
    • BabyWookie, on 05/04/2008, -11/+4Cons talk a good game, but in their heart, they despise every one who is not like them.
      • notadiggtard, on 05/04/2008, -7/+8Funny,Its usually the libs on this board who hate Christians,conservatives,actually all religions etc.One the other day said "die in a fire",comment above"the world will be better off without you."If you disagree with a lib the must hate you and want you to suffer and die.Not surprising since liberalism is composed entirely of emotion and no reasoning.Find me a liberal issue argument that doesn't start and end with emotion.
        • GtCo21, on 05/04/2008, -4/+7You're right, the millions and millions of people who would describe their political beliefs as "liberal" can clearly be represented by the few people who post on Digg. What an accurate stereotype you manifested, and all from this very website.
        • BabyWookie, on 05/04/2008, -4/+4Organized religion is a force of evil and has been the bane of human existence for long enough. All it does is prey on the weak-minded, the desperate and the emotionally vulnerable, proving them with a false comfort, while spreading ignorance and intolerance. Blaming some one for hating organized religion, is kind of like blaming them for hating child rapists. You can never be blamed for being intolerant of a group that's based on intolerance.

          -Non-atheist.
    • DeFex, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3Guilt works great.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 05/04/2008, -7/+4You live in your own little world, don't you, Stevanoski? I picture that that little world is Mama's basement and a diet of Count Chocula cereal four times a day.
      • GhostyBoy, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2That sounds awesome!

        Sorry dude, but that cereal is the *****! And I'm 27 years old. Every meal? ***** yeah.

        Stevanoski's comment? Oh, well yeah it was obviously stupid.

        Chocolate breakfast FTW!
    • saisumimen, on 05/05/2008, -5/+4You fools with your "damn libruls" nonsense DO realize that San Francisco has the highest gas prices in the entire country, right? The cost of living there is absurd. Are you in denial that the economy is currently in the *****?

      Comparing those two cities is a flawed strategy.
  • ikbrooks, on 05/04/2008, -30/+56This is not news. Not to me anyway.
    • ronaldst, on 05/04/2008, -7/+13Remind ourselves of this reality is good now and then. :)
    • SaperKain, on 05/04/2008, -16/+6This proves that conservatives feel a lot of guilt for ***** the poor by consistently voting for republicans.
    • JettaMan, on 05/05/2008, -4/+7I've realized for a long time that those who scream the loudest about helping the poor really aren't that sincere about it. They just use it to try and achieve power in politics. I remember Al Gore had a pitiful yearly charity donation record compared to George Bush in 1999, which was surprising considering Gore has lots of cash.
      • jeffreym, on 05/05/2008, -8/+5Conservatives should give more. They're the ones with the guilty conscience.

  • rjwusa, on 05/04/2008, -72/+109Liberals would rather spend their disposable cash on drugs, sexual lubricants, and protest sign making materials.
    • these3remain, on 05/04/2008, -20/+34And don't forget - incandescent lightbulbs, too!
      • rjwusa, on 05/04/2008, -13/+21And redwood hot tubs and decks!
      • yellowcakewalk, on 05/04/2008, -11/+5I really envy these rabid conservatives! Instead of having to confront the challenging world of factual information, they can merely hallucinate their information. So much easier than getting down to the hard work of study and inquiry that good citizenship requires.
        • DreadPirate, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4Yellow - this coming from someone who is too much of a coward to actually debate? When was the last time you actually carried on a conversation in the comments here? Your typical M.O. is to post a comment or a link and then run away, never to return.
    • fuzzmeister, on 05/04/2008, -27/+64And conservatives spend it on guns, cheap beer, and mobile homes.

      Making sweeping generalizations sure is fun.
      • twomeyw23334, on 05/04/2008, -14/+26And charity
        • BabyWookie, on 05/04/2008, -7/+8Churches are not charities. They are business.
          • yellowcakewalk, on 05/04/2008, -6/+7And should be taxed like any other business. Giving a check to some polyester-suit preacher to build a Taj-Mahal sized monument for the superstitious to roll around in the aisles in is really the opposite of charity, as that money could be doing something useful instead.
          • BottledSunshine, on 05/04/2008, -2/+9I don’t have a problem with churches being taxed. As long as groups like the ACLU, the National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, A.N.S.W.E.R. The Sierra Club, PETA and every other of this type “non-profit” group is taxed at the same rate.
      • GhostyBoy, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4Wait....I want to buy lube, cheap beer, drugs and live in a mobile home....now I don't know what to do! What political affiliation am I? Communist? Anarchist? LIBERTARIAN? I'm so confused!
    • foofightrs777, on 05/04/2008, -18/+26Don't forget the male hookers! All male conservatives LOVE male hookers!

      Yeah generalizations are fun!
    • uberdeutsch72, on 05/04/2008, -8/+16And that's bad because....? Drugs, sex and protest...sounds pretty American to me.
      • Glynth, on 05/04/2008, -10/+6Look, an example of what's wrong with America. Go back to the sixties.
        • chrisaug18, on 05/04/2008, -3/+6America? Protests?
          • Glynth, on 05/04/2008, -6/+5If you think drugs and sex are real American values, you need to be kept away from children. Likewise if you think protesting for protesting's sake is valuable.
        • GhostyBoy, on 05/04/2008, -3/+7So you are one of those guys who likes to talk about freedom all the time, but shuns those who exercise it?
          • Glynth, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Oh yes, trying to uphold moral standards means obviously I'm a hypocrite when it comes to freedom of speech, since freedom of speech was totally designed to prevent people from being criticized for being immoral. That's what the founders were after. Uh huh.
    • diggimator, on 05/04/2008, -8/+2That makes them no different from conservatives.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/04/2008, -2/+7Did you forget the video already.
        • diggimator, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Didn't know the video was claiming that conservatives don't do drugs or don't make protest signs. I have known liberals who are drug free as well as conservatives who are deeply into drugs.
    • BabyWookie, on 05/04/2008, -16/+3Conservatives would rather spend their money on guns, ammo, big trucks, NASCAR merchanize, country music and gay hookers.
    • ajmanx, on 05/04/2008, -0/+10That reminds me, I have to go shopping.
    • Beaver1279, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4If that's true I should become a liberal.
    • JettaMan, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5Lol! Yes Liberals suck. Their day has passed. Libertarians are overtaking them.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2Conservatives voted for Bush.
      You owe us Liberals about $9 Trillion Dollars because WE certainly didn't support this ***** of Reagonomics, Globalization, and War Profiteering. So, since we are all stuck paying the national debt because of your stupidity and refusal to read history -- then at least you can shut up and just tell a Liberal; "Thank you, I'm sorry me and John Stossel have been wrong about everything and such douche bags."

      >> And sex, drugs and rock and roll aren't causing problems -- making them illegal is.
  • Qong, on 05/04/2008, -42/+34That's an interesting story.
    I really don't understand liberals: Why would anyone rather have government hand-holding instead of having the heart and the freedom to choose to do good things on their own free will?
    • NoStoppingUs, on 05/04/2008, -22/+31It allows them to have less personal responsibility, period. That's the entire premise of liberalism.
    • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -22/+35You're right, you don't understand liberals.
      • diggerine, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1.
      • Qong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I understand liberals just fine.
        You would rather have big government waste our tax dollars through horrible choices and corruption; and continue living your life forever having your hand held and having everyone being watched over. All this because you are too scared to take responsibility for your own actions and too spineless to demand that everyone else in our country do the exact same thing.
        Live up to your responsibilities people. The country would be a much better place. That's all that we have to do to make our country great. We don't need the government to do it for us.
    • Cam_86, on 05/04/2008, -18/+14Because giving one person $5 while supporting a government that alienates the poor isnt doing anyone any good but that one person you gave $5 to. Even if there are 1 million people who do that, it is still a far cry from a comprehensive solution to deal with poverty. Maybe thats why the poor in america are FAR worse off then the poor in Canada, the UK, France, all of Scandinavia, etc...
      • ShadowMerchant, on 05/04/2008, -7/+16Do you have proof for that assertion? Around here the "poor" wear sneakers costing more than my first car, which they regularly replace to keep them spotless. They are fat as pigs, too.
      • twomeyw23334, on 05/04/2008, -4/+14The poor in America (on average) have greater living space then the middle class in France, so I think you're full of *****. Unless... by far worse of you mean those countries don't have an obesity problem with their lower class.
        • Cam_86, on 05/04/2008, -12/+5Living space? Thats an odd way to measure living standards... I guess your right though, there seems to be a lot more open space in america then france. Kudos on that winning argument, you silver tonged devil.

          By the way, the poorest in the UK have longer life expectancy then the richest in america. They dont have as much living space on that island though, so clearly its a moot point to you.
          • twomeyw23334, on 05/04/2008, -2/+10People could live much longer if we force them be vegetarians, or work out every day. We could regulate / mandate / dictate everyone to a longer life. By that standard, a world like The Matrix, where we all live in glass tubes would yield the highest quality of life. Not much living space in a glass tube but... guess that's a moot point to you.
        • eaasness, on 05/04/2008, -8/+6Yes when you have to live outdoors you have tons of space.
      • grahamcm, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5When you suggest that individually generous people are only giving "$5", you're making an insulting assumption about some very generous people in this country. First of all, didn't you see the part of the story talking about how much the working poor are giving? It seemed likely to be more than $5.
        But more importantly, tell me what you think it suggests about a person's character when they are poor themselves, yet give a high percentage of their income to other needy people.
        And finally, you're neglecting to consider the many private charitable organizations in this country who make a personal difference in people's lives every day. If you are in desperate need, an organization like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, or even your local church, is able to provide you with much more than $5.
        Open your mind and take a look around.
    • AngelBunny, on 05/04/2008, -5/+5liberal by definition means: freedom for the people
      you obviously have no idea what liberal means.
      • JettaMan, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Liberal in America is different from in Europe. IIn America it's a socailist. In Europe a liberal is like a libertarian.
      • Qong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I know very well what liberal means.
        You can't have freedom when you allow the government control every aspect of our lives. Take some responsibility and stop being so damned ignorant. The video is absolutely true, Liberals give less because they don't want to take personal responsibility, they would rather have big brother government control everything for us and make things great for everyone; by taking from those that work the hardest.
    • JettaMan, on 05/05/2008, -1/+7Because most liberals are hypocrites. They want to tell you what to do with your money rather than spending their own voluntarily. Socialists do not understand freedom.
  • Aciluf, on 05/04/2008, -48/+12how the hell did this get to the front page with 29 diggs
  • Picaroon, on 05/04/2008, -19/+66It might partially come down to a basic paradigm difference. Modern American liberals might prefer that the government do these things, whereas conservatives who are (only in theory) smaller-government people make be more willing to take up charity.

    Either way, this is an interesting statistic and one I think Diggers should see. I don't agree, however, that liberals "despise" the poor or waste money on drugs and lube :)
    • macweirdo42, on 05/04/2008, -7/+30Hey, I object - money spent on drugs and lube is NEVER a waste.
    • captZEEbo, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3insightful comments....had they not been said in the video.
    • TheDHC, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8I've had it with the conservatives and their do-nothing policy on lube.
    • hackiavelli, on 05/04/2008, -3/+10There are a couple of problems with the report. The biggest is that this doesn't appear to be original research. It's a metastudy which means rather than doing his own original research he used different studies with different methodologies and groups and tried to form a synthesis from them. That can work but more often than not it doesn't.

      The other problem is that Stossel is blanketing entire populations as liberal or conservative. Since I live in Nebraska all the charitable donations I've given in the last year count as "conservative" even though I'm not.
  • mdnttoker, on 05/04/2008, -28/+40It seems Stossel throws out two different distinctions without ever correlating the too....liberal vs. conservative and rich vs. poor. Kinda useless report in any event....
    • SaperKain, on 05/04/2008, -12/+11Propaganda. Look at all the republicans jerkin off to this video. Pathetic.
    • d03boy, on 05/04/2008, -8/+4Actually he linked the correlation being that conservatives, on average, are poorer than liberals. Suck it.
      • AngelBunny, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5if you only compare middle class. upper class there are more conservatives and they on average are richer than liberals.
        • execute85, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2But there aren't as much of those as the middle class, better off people. So Stossel's statement that liberals are more likely to be wealthy/rich stands.
  • allholy1, on 05/04/2008, -30/+1231 diggs in 3 minutes, but the clip is just over 3 minutes...
    • foofightrs777, on 05/04/2008, -2/+6hmm I wonder why you're being dugg down...

    • skiboy352001, on 05/04/2008, -2/+5Gee, do you think someone is gaming the system?
  • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -50/+94Absolutely flawed statistics, and a pathetic attempt to conduct an "experiment." I could go on and on, but the red flag should be this: The Salvation Army is a CHRISTIAN CHARITY. Is it really surprising that people in an area where less than 14% of people go to church give less than people in an area where 50%+ of people go to church?
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/04/2008, -28/+44And why would that make a difference to the majority of the people giving? The Salvation Army is one of the biggest charities around. Most people don't even see it as a religious organization. Your point is completely moot here.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -15/+23It would make a difference to me. I'd rather give to a non-denominational charity like the Red Cross, Feed the Children, or PATH. To be honest, homelessness in America isn't a terribly huge problem in the global scheme of things, especially in an area like San Francisco where the homeless are orders of magnitude better off than most people in the world, and on the top of the homeless food chain in the US. Come to SF and see how the homeless live, and compare that to South Dakota.

        Most people who give to charity do recognize the Salvation Army as a Christian charity. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but that doesn't go over as well in an area like San Francisco.

        If you had picked a different charity, you'd have gotten a fundamentally different result, and so clearly it does make a difference.
        • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -6/+2Err, not Feed the Children. There's a sentence missing there. Damn you copy and paste.
        • se1zure, on 05/04/2008, -3/+5sure the homeless are better off, but I would rather help play a part helping out here are home, before I worry about other kids halfway across the world
        • Nevarius, on 05/04/2008, -2/+10Glad you brought this up. Charities that are church based by law are not required to submit records to the IRS, so its hard to see how much of the money they bring in actually makes it to the poor/etc. This is one of the reasons why i don't donate to the Salvation Army, and the other being that the Salvation Army refuses to make these stats available.
          The Red Cross on the other hand has no problems releasing data and a very high percent of the money they collect goes to the people in need.
          Why should i donate to a charity that can hide its performance due to being religious based?
          • execute85, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3This is not true. The Salvation Army does release its financial data (see http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/CH0144.html- 1st google result). It looks like they spend 83% of the money raised on charity (the other 17% spent on admin stuff). This isn't the best around (I only donate to 90%+), but it's still one of the best around.
        • notadiggtard, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1Real slick.focus on the two buckets in the video and ignore th mountain of data and the boo referenced.Google"charity giving liberal vs conservative"-tons of pieces on this,it is a fact.
      • PhobosDeimos, on 05/04/2008, -12/+8Well then ***** San Francisco. I can't believe those narcissistic tossers can't get over their own interests to give to charity.
      • captZEEbo, on 05/04/2008, -16/+11I'd never give to a Christian charity knowingly.
      • cephelo, on 05/04/2008, -4/+12I think that sentiment as wrong. Even my very devout Catholic family doesn't donate to the Salvation Army -- it's either charitable work directly through their church or non-denominational charities. The faith-based ones have had too much corruption and don't make enough of their information public to instill trust.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 05/04/2008, -4/+5I would rather give money to the Salvation Army, who actually gives money to the poor, rather than quasi government organization that swallows up the money in it's beauracy. Spend a little time on the Internet and look at what the Red Cross does vs. The Army. I really couldn't care less if they are Christian, because they use their money better.
      • Glynth, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7A lot of you people act as if the Salvation Army anecdote was the only bit of evidence in the video. I'm pretty sure you aren't even trying to come up with real arguments for your disproven positions.
      • pintomp3, on 05/04/2008, -9/+7you are neglecting the fact that the Salvation Army has an established anti-gay policy. do you honestly think people in san francisco would give to them as opposed to a secular, non-bigoted charity?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_Army#Contro ...
        "The Army's position is that because it is a church, Section VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly guarantees its rights to be particular in its hiring."
      • AngelBunny, on 05/04/2008, -2/+4people in sanfrancisco are very big on donating to local charities that effect the local community not a religious agenda that is anti-san fran's community. Trust me, I know. I live in san fran.
      • XanKiran, on 05/04/2008, -5/+4You're absolutely right, no one should give to the Salvation Army. There are many more deserving charities. The Salvation Army promotes an unhealthy and destructive religion by doing token good works.

        All of those red states rank higher the charity metric only if you count tithing to your church as charitable giving. A church is like a club, and they often provide daycare and group outings in addition to regular social events. Paying annual dues to your golf club doesn't count as charity. Giving all your money to the Church of Scientology isn't charity, and giving less money to an older church isn't any different.

        Religions are like the many pseudo charities out there spend a small fraction of your donations on actually actual good work, and spend the rest on administrative "expenses" like paying the leaders. The more people move away from religion, the more tolerant our society will become.
      • Clark3934, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3You should remember his statistics are not taken from this experiment--he just set this up to further his point, but rather from a series of published, academic studies.
    • Scheissen, on 05/04/2008, -16/+4it's a conspiracy!!!

      Go fetch your tinfoil hat.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -5/+5It's not a conspiracy, it's just that the results will be difference depending on the charity.
    • VicHislop, on 05/04/2008, -26/+23The red flag should have been this: John Stossel.
    • purplelantern, on 05/04/2008, -9/+17John Stoseel's little tv monkey dance of course meant nothing. But the meat is in the Syracuse studies which I assume would have far more solid data. But then again the distinction between red state and blue state is dumb. In the last election, usually it was the difference of only a few percentage points that made a state red or blue.
    • PhobosDeimos, on 05/04/2008, -17/+10I don't believe there is a difference between Christian charity and non-Christian charity. It's not like the Salvation Army only gives to poor Christians.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -8/+5I'm not saying that.

        Try it with a charity like Oxfam and see if you get a different response. Or better yet, the Red Cross or PBS.
        • IglooBurner, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4This have nothing to do with Christian charity, most of the people that gave probably doesn't even know Salvation Army is a Christian charity.
          • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4Really? I guarantee you that most of the people who donate are well aware that it's a Christian charity.

            From their own website:
            The Mission Statement of the Salvation Army USA

            The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

            The Doctrines of the Salvation Army

            1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that only they constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.
            2. We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship.
            3. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and equal in power and glory.
            4. We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.
            5. We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocence, but by their disobedience, they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall, all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.
            6. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by His suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will believe may be saved.
            7. We believe that repentance toward God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary to salvation.
            8. We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believes has the witness in himself.
            9. We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.
            10. We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
            11. We believe in the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, in the general judgement at the end of the world, in the eternal happiness of the righteous, and in the endless punishment of the wicked.
        • cephelo, on 05/04/2008, -2/+4Precisely. Try it with PBS in San Francisco versus South Dakota. Or better yet, Doctors Without Borders or other HIV/AIDS related charities. I (as a mix between liberal and conservative ideologies) donate a fair bit but to specific charities. I don't donate to broad, giant charities -- there is too much room for corruption. Niche charities are where it's at for those with some research skills.
          • Glynth, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Did you actually watch the video? (And PBS? Seriously?)
        • ajmanx, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Thanks for introducing me to Oxfam. I had not known of them and am very impressed with their mission statements.
      • Cam_86, on 05/04/2008, -14/+11Are you kidding? If i'm looking to donate money, i make a point to find a non-religious charity. I dont want someones ***** up 2000+ year old morals getting in the way of solving an issue. Religious peoples handling of sex ed. is enough for me to avoid paying any money into that black hole.($200 going towards a group of people who will belittle a single mother and try to teach counter-biological education[abstinence] is $200 wasted.)
        • twomeyw23334, on 05/04/2008, -4/+5You obviously hate religious types, but they do have some of the best ranked charities around, and the only ones I know of with 90%+ efficiencies. Compare that to the UN which has an efficiency rating in the 60% range, which means about 40% of your dollar is going to bureaucracy. You can donate to Christian charities with specific causes that can guarantee use of your money is not going to intelligent design teachings.
          • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -4/+2Since when is the UN a charity?
          • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2And just FYI, both PBS and the Red Cross rank higher for charitable commitment and efficiency.
          • Glynth, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2"Since when is the UN a charity?"

            It ties into a point the video made (which you probably didn't see, or ignored if you did) that the Left prefers having the government and such organizations (like the UN) "solve" things over using charities. See also:
            ABC News : 2020 : Myth : Foreign Aid
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZHyspuEEKg&NR=1
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/04/2008, -4/+6Yep, because all churches and all church charities are just like that!

          Thank you for contributing even more braindead ignorance and stupidity to the world.
      • captZEEbo, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7would you be more willing to give $ to a muslim charity, a christian charity, or an atheist charity.
        (you pick christian)
        See, it does make a difference.
      • pintomp3, on 05/04/2008, -7/+9The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church.
        http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf/vw ...
        they are going around trying to convert people. i would never give my money to something like that. especially considering their anti-gay policies.
    • diggimator, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1Perhaps people are more willing to open up their wallets in front of a Walmart entrance than a train station entrance. Perhaps people have stronger brand recognition of Salvation Army in rural areas because they've used it themselves. However, I certainly have never heard or even imagined that conservatives donate to charity less than liberals. The prevalence of this so-called "myth" is probably a myth in itself.
      • Glynth, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4It's a well-known fact confirmed by study after study, year after year, by many many organizations that conservatives tend to donate larger percentages of their income to charity. You can deny it all you want; that doesn't make it untrue.
        • diggimator, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Why would I want to deny something that I am in 100% agreement with? Looks like you missed the point I was making.

          The video says "this idea that liberals give more is a myth." I'm skeptical of the actual prevalence of said myth, and the video doesn't attempt to quantify that. If any significant number of people believed this myth, then that would have been the bigger news to me.
          • Glynth, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Sorry, misread your comment as saying you didn't believe what the video was saying. Anyway, I've heard that myth being spouted all over the Internet. Liberals on Digg and elsewhere (not "Democrats" - I mean trash-talking Liberals) like to claim they're all "compassionate" and such, saying the Right "doesn't care about the poor," etc. etc., when the facts - which they unfailingly ignore - prove them wrong again and again.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9I'm not sure what point you think you had, but they give more to religious and non-religious charities alike.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -6/+2No.

        Last week I came up with a list of charities for a project I'm working on:
        * Child's Play (toys for sick kids)
        * American Red Cross (emergency relief)
        * Public Broadcasting Service (programming for public TV)
        * Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York art museum)
        * Oxfam (hunger relief)
        * Whole Planet Foundation (poverty relief)
        * PATH (global health initiatives)
        * Mayo Clinic (health, treatment, and research)
        * The Children's Hospital (Boston children's hospital)
        * Nature Conservatory (acquires open spaces)

        Find me a statistic that shows that people in South Dakota give more to those kinds of non-denominational charities than those in a city like San Francisco.
        • Clark3934, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Did you not pay attention to the video?
          • ralphthemagi, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Sure. It makes no mention of what I said whatsoever.
          • Glynth, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2What, it has to mention those organizations by name or it doesn't count, now, ralph? As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break."
      • masterm1nd, on 05/04/2008, -2/+5I don't know why you're comparing SD stats to SF stats. But in the big picture counting all 50 states, they give more to non-religious charities as well as religious ones.
        • ralphthemagi, on 05/04/2008, -6/+0Why not? They have about the same amount of people.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1South Dakota also has about the same amount of people as... South Dakota. Try comparing that.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7The polling had nothing to do with the Salvation Army. The ABC cameras just needed something to film.
    • brad3378, on 05/04/2008, -3/+3Thanks for the info.
      From now on I'll donate to the Atheist Army instead.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1You mean the Digg Army?

        They just finished their C round I think. They don't need any more money.
    • ggriffit, on 05/05/2008, -5/+1VERY good point! This is a church organization. He doesn't mention stats from ALL categories of charity.
  • GameCop, on 05/04/2008, -14/+43Did anyone else read this as "John Stossel is cheap on charity"?
    • SaperKain, on 05/04/2008, -5/+6John Stossel is saying what he is told to say. This guy is a absolute disgrace. People like him kill honest journalism.
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/04/2008, -27/+64Holy *****, something that actually looks favorable to conservatives showing up on Digg? I'd have sooner expected the Aryan Nations to endorse Obama!

    Time to head for the shelter, because the end of the world can't be far off now...
    • Glynth, on 05/04/2008, -6/+12Don't worry, it's being buried into oblivion and all sorts of anti-conservative, anti-religion, anti-morality hatred is being spread in the comments like wildfire. Digg will be back to normal soon enough!
      • Anonchrist, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Anti-morality? I can not think of a single person that is anti-morality. Maybe people just find your scope of morality deluded.
    • vvaduva, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4Yeah...amazing this got past the extremists. They must all be sleeping in after a night of playing video games, but it will soon be buried. Like Glynth said, digg will soon be back to normal, no fear :)
  • Scheissen, on 05/04/2008, -22/+17Liberals, the government is not a charity. Charities actually help the poor because they will have to get off their ass and do something productive. If your only reason to donate is it makes you "feel good" like that little girl in the video then why don't you do that? You can't force compassion with the threat of a gun.
    • casey148, on 05/04/2008, -2/+6Yeah, if you really want to feel good, donate your time and energy, not just money.
      • rficwizard, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2A great read regarding this whole question is "In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government" by Charles Murray. He discusses what leads to happiness (involvement in community and charity being one such thing) ad the effect of particular government programs on such activities.
    • pintomp3, on 05/04/2008, -4/+2"You can't force compassion with the threat of a gun." maybe not compassion, but how about democracy?
  • WCL23, on 05/04/2008, -16/+11It is unfortunate that many liberals do not practice what they preach, but in all fairness that isn't exactly limited to the liberal demographic.
    Humanity as a whole can all too readily identify what the right thing is, and the importance of following through with your convictions. Those that do however are few and far between :(
  • bridow, on 05/04/2008, -10/+23actually union square where macy's in SF is all tourist. there are so many people asking money on that block, this is a bad comparison.
    • poopdigger, on 05/04/2008, -6/+7Stossel said that the Red Cross picked it because it was one of their best spots in SF
      • Dumbledorito, on 05/04/2008, -2/+7The Red Cross?

        And he said "busiest." It wasn't clarified if that meant "most donations" or "most foot traffic."
    • whataboutdave, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Watch it again. The story is based on Professor Brooks' research for ALL charities. The Salvation Army thing was just a gag that ABC ran for the camera, because, you know, university studies are boring on TV.
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/04/2008, -19/+43Lol...I can't believe people still buy into the liberal and conservative paradigm *****.

    It's like a craps game between two teams. All they care about is that they continue to play their craps game, and they stop everyone who threatens their craps game.

    Look into the mirror and repeat three times:

    They don't give a ***** about you.
    • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -3/+6Liberal and conservative are sociopolitical ideologies. They are not necessary the Democrats and Republicans as you imply. People who hold liberal or conservative worldviews don't give a ***** about you?
    • IglooBurner, on 05/04/2008, -2/+5and hence you shouldn't give a ***** about anyone else? is that your message?
    • AngelBunny, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1since I'm liberal and a republican what do you make of me then?
    • mlirblur, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Stossel's likely to agree with you, *****. He's a libertarian.
    • FuckXboxx, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Don't you guys understand this is propaganda to fuel a national divide during an election year so people are more likely to latch on to whichever candidate supports whatever propaganda they throw at us next?

      The politics of the running candidates are almost identical so they have to create an illusionary divide via the media to keep people in their same brainwashed mentality.
    • InRussetShadows, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Don't you understand that words mean things? Don't you understand that I'm going to call myself a conservative regardless of whoever else uses that term or identifies themselves as such? Don't you understand that I'm going to call myself a conservative this year, the next year, and the year after that, like I have for the previous years of my life? Why can't you understand that words mean things? Why can't you get it that life is deeper than sound bites and your TV screen? What exactly is your problem?
      • FuckXboxx, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1I don't even have a TV...I wouldn't subject myself to that brainwashing.

        Call yourself what you want...when the media tries to point out differences between liberal and conservative they're just trying to manipulate people into doing/thinking whatever benefits the global elite.
  • brad3378, on 05/04/2008, -2/+10I'm very intrigued by the graph showing that the middle class give less than the rich and the poor.

    If the middle class get their tax cuts and the rich start paying even more in taxes, will the donations graph flatten out?
    • dlsspy, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7I think some people don't get the middle class. I grew up poor -- seriously, seriously poor. At the bottom, you don't have a lot to lose, and you don't have to be particularly responsible because there's always something there. As you could hear from the video, they give to these organizations because they fear they may need to have the organizations bail them out at some point. It's an investment strategy -- they're buying hope.

      In the middle class, we have fewer bailouts, tax breaks, etc... (putting my wife through college was way more expensive than it would've been if I made slightly less money). Things cost more here.

      At the high end, you've got bigger numbers to play with, so you have a bit more wiggle room. It's easier to get certain kinds of tax breaks, too, though I don't know how significant that is.

      So normalize the graph a bit, and I think it may appear to be a bit more linear.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Middle class has to use all its income to maintain their status. The poor don't have to maintain much and are also, paradoxically, more religious.

      Who the ***** are the poor donating to? And why don't their churches just tell them to grab money from the plate as it is passed around?

      The rich have what is called "disposable income." And many got there by taking advantage of someone else's labor -- its very hard to get rich any other way.
  • Heidenreich12, on 05/04/2008, -17/+21yeah, since when did 'nice' things about conservatives show up on digg? Its actually a nice change to see some diversity.... rather than.... headline: FOX NEWS SUCKS. That gets old.
    • Anonchrist, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2This is just more anti-liberal propaganda, so I don't see the difference. Nothing from faux has ever made it to digg without that bias; faux is not bashing conservatives are they? Now That would be different. People would be praising faux for there bull-***** study.

      Atheist do not donate to religious charities is not news.
    • davidmesaaz, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Well since I started digging I have had 7 popular stories 2 have hit the front page and all of them have a conservative libertarian slant.
  • mgyqmb, on 05/04/2008, -7/+9I've always been of the opinion that charity is great in theory and fantastic for short-term problems on a small scale, but has an overall negative impact as a whole. Simply stated, "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish". There was a story on here the other day about how food aid to Africa is actually working to put african farmers out of business and depressing the economies there.
    • nullvector, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8Yes, but unless you "teach a man to fish" yourself, you're not contributing to the solution. Teaching people costs money too, you know.
    • Dumbledorito, on 05/04/2008, -5/+12Give a man a fire, and he's warm for today. Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5I agree with you completely, but, charities both give away fish AND teach people to fish.
    • Anonchrist, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Give a ,man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

      Salvation Army is not a charity that I would donate to, when there are so many other deserving ones.
  • Dumbledorito, on 05/04/2008, -8/+28Using the Salvation Army is an odd choice. If one doesn't agree with the foundation behind the charity, why would you donate to a religious organization? You might as well go to Salt Lake City and wonder why people there don't seem to give as much to Catholic run charities.

    It's far more effective to give to local food pantries and shelters, anyway, especially if you're concerned about where the cash goes. "Harvesters" is a personal favorite of mine. We try to donate and give food staples to them whenever they put out the bins and coupons at our local grocery store.
    • pintomp3, on 05/04/2008, -3/+10he obviously chose the salvation army because he knows conservatives would give to it more. SA has well known anti-gay policy, john stossel knows full well that many in san francisco would rather give to more secular charities.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1The poll that the story referenced directly had nothing to do with the SA. That was just what the camer crew shot.
  • govsucks, on 05/04/2008, -27/+16Liberals don't understand that human beings comply far more easily with freedom than they do force. You get a far greater output (charity) with freedom than you do force. They want to force others to be more charitable than themselves. I personally will give freely to my neighbor if I am free to do so at MY discretion, but when my neighbor starts using the power of government to force me to do something, now we have a problem and I would work to deny such a system of as much of the resources that I have as possible. Also you have the fact that forced servitude is wrong. I don't give a ***** what you say, if you force someone to work so that you may take it and use it for another purpose, even if a angry mob demands it, it is slavery. Not a single person should talk to me of freedom when they want to subjugate the life of one human for the purpose of another.
    • frsrblch, on 05/04/2008, -8/+10I believe you have "liberal" and "communist" confused.
      • JimmyTheClam, on 05/04/2008, -4/+4Can you name me a communist that does not also describe themselves as a "liberal"?
        Almost all.
        How many communists refer to themselves as conservatives?
        None that I have seen.

        The only real difference between most liberals and most communists is a simply a matter of degree.
        • manitoba98xp, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3On the political scale, communism is indeed extreme leftism (liberalism). But fascism is extreme rightism (conservatism).

          By your token, the only real difference between most liberals and most communists is simply a matter of degree.
          • govsucks, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Yes, thats it exactly, to what degree do these people not respect the property and lives of others. That tells you how much of a leftist someone is.
        • rficwizard, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1@manitoba: An interesting take on the political spectrum is given by the "World's Smallest Political Quiz"

          http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
          • manitoba98xp, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Indeed. I'm on the border between centrism and liberalism, halfway between statism and libertarianism. Pretty much where I thought I was.
        • jhelmer, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2> On the political scale, communism is indeed extreme leftism (liberalism). But fascism is extreme rightism (conservatism).

          Nonsense. Fascism is a statist form of government. At it's core conservatism is about less government control. Conservatism taken to it's extreme leads to anarchy.

          Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism absolutely destroys your statement. He actually takes a look at the policies of the fascist governments that have ruled and looks at their positions. To paraphrase a question Goldberg often asks of leftists who insists that conservatives are fascist, if you take away the genocidal tendencies what exactly is it about fascism that you disagree with? They supported all the common leftist programs from minimum wages to increased unionization to increasing retirement benefits to environmentalism to enhanced animal rights to strictly secular schools to a legal workday of no longer than 8 hours to forcing landowners to give up their produce to "veterans and farmers cooperatives".

          To quote Goldberg: "Ah, yes. Those anti-elitist, stock-market-abolishing, child-labor-ending, public-health-promoting, wealth-confiscating, draft-ending, secularist right wingers!"
    • OddManRush, on 05/04/2008, -10/+5Yea! Let's invade a country like a conservative! Your argument: cognitive dissonance.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3He didn't even say that he was a conservative. You did.
    • BeardedClem, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5OddManRush,

      Govsuck's comment sounds more like a libertarian sentiment to me. One I wholeheartedly agree with.

      Obviously anyone that disagrees with your socialist viewpoint gets turned into a hyper-jingoist, neocon straw man for you whack at with that dull butterknife of a wit you have.
    • SaperKain, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2This guy is a absolute troll. Dont respond to him. Just bury him. Maybe he will go away.
      • govsucks, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Why do I keep seeing those three monkeys in my mind, one with hands over mouth, the other over eyes, and the other over ears when this guy comments?
    • AngelBunny, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3liberal by definition means freedom. you have no idea what you're talking about do you?
      • govsucks, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4Really!? Well I want to be free to invest for my retirement in a private account, will liberals allow me to be free to do that? Yeah, thats what I thought, real freedom lovers you liberals. I think YOU don't understand the difference between force and freedom.
      • BabaRamDass, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2Modern liberals, not to be confused with classical liberals, tend to be all about freedom when it comes to social issues, such as drugs, prostitution, abortion, and sex. But when it comes to fiscal or economic issues, they are as authoritarian (anti-freedom, by definition) as your typical neo-con.

        What's funny is that both conservatives and liberals believe that they must be authoritarian on certain issues because "they know what's best." They truly do believe their opinion is society's savior from itself. The liberal thinks we must steal from others so that we can take care of those less fortunate; after all, private charity is a myth, or at best hype. The conservative thinks we must restrict individuals' choices in marriage because the fabric of society as we know it would otherwise crumble. Neither group can see the forest for the trees. They both have well intentions, but this brings bad consequences.
        • govsucks, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3That was well said, long story short, neither believe in freedom.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I agree, to an extent.

        Jefferson was one of the first liberals, where being a liberal meant supporting an iconoclastic movement related to escaping the arbitrary authority of monarchies. The same underlying principles are shared by Libertarians, though the ideology has matured a great deal over time.

        Modern, self ascribed liberals are much, much different.

  • Triskozko, on 05/04/2008, -17/+11Breaking news: the south is nicer. Also John Stossel is an anti libertarian hack; even in this story about generosity he had to bring in gov't welfare.
    • Triskozko, on 05/04/2008, -8/+8Pardon me, I meant "is a libertarian hack", incorrect edit.
    • govsucks, on 05/04/2008, -3/+3Yeah, those people that want freedom, what a bunch of cattle. /Sarcasm
  • kickisaacout, on 05/04/2008, -25/+29but folks, we have to remember the one key fact: john stossel is a gigantic douchebag.
  • OneAndOnlySnob, on 05/04/2008, -26/+43Ladies and gentlemen, this is a perfect example of "cherry picking". This only proves John Stossel has a bias towards being a dumbass.
    • SuperKing84, on 05/04/2008, -11/+10Thank you it seems that John Stossel can't do anything without picking out certain facts and ignoring others.
      • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -4/+8What relevant facts did he ignore? I'd actually like to know.
        • dlsspy, on 05/04/2008, -8/+4This study is very similar to saying, ``I went to two different cities and asked a couple people for dollars. In one city, I was lined up with a hundred homeless people who were also asking for dollars. In the other city, it was just me. The latter gave me more money! Liberals are selfish!''
        • captZEEbo, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5They referenced more studies than just that one. That one, while obviously flawed, is typical of tv programming. It's just to make it more personal. He still referenced the real studies.
    • mco5t9, on 05/04/2008, -2/+9I agree that Stossel's little experiment was flawed, but it was only the hook for the story. Arthur C. Brooks' book is much more well researched and he has some very solid evidence backing up his thesis.
    • captZEEbo, on 05/04/2008, -1/+10They referenced more studies than just that one. That one, while obviously flawed, is typical of tv programming. It's just to make it more personal. He still referenced the real studies.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Conservatives, may give more to charity -- but they voted for George Bush. How many donations is it going to take to make up for that colossal mistake?
  • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -22/+24I guess I must be liberal, cause it seems dumb to me to give to charities unless I believe in their cause 100%.

    It seems like the government should make sure people don't starve, not really any other organization. Raise my taxes, but don't bother me on the street.
    • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -9/+16The problem with your belief is that it forces other people who actually would like to have control of where their money goes to donate their hard-earned dollars to a place of the government's choice. Force is always wrong. Period. And you're helping make the case to justify it.
      • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -14/+4You get to choose with your vote.

        Either you believe in our republic, or you don't.
        • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -3/+6Setting aside the fact that I'm Canadian, someone does not get to choose where their money goes with their vote. Are you saying that if I voted Republican (would never happen unless Ron Paul had the nomination and I was indeed an American citizen) that all of a sudden I would be granted the choice to spend my money where I see fit? It doesn't work like that. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. If 51% of the population believes that I should not have the right to my own money, then I actually don't have a right to my own money. I believe in the United States of America republic (at least the kind it used to be), but I don't think that means that whatever the people decide is automatically right and just.
          • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2I'm saying that the discussion becomes much bigger when you say you are being forced to do something against your will. If that's how you see your tax dollars being spent in ways you don't agree with, then we should probably be talking about whether or not you believe in the very government that is governing you.

            What kind of government do you think would work better? Our republic has been relatively peaceful for 200+ years, and I, personally, can't think of anything better. In order for it to keep on working the way it has, the only power I have in deciding where my tax money gets spent is my vote, and I have to live with it. If I start saying I am being forced to do something, I am probably saying that I want a new system of government.
          • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3A government that will put you in jail for not paying taxes that don't benefit you, or taxes that you just don't believe in is FORCE any way you slice it.

            Force: The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.

            If you don't pay the taxes you disagree with, they lock you up. I am not advocating an entirely new system of government, I am just saying that the current one needs to be tweaked. A lot.
          • captZEEbo, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2slothlovechunk,
            he is saying he wants a new form of government. However, he can't just declare a new government, he has to convince a lot of people that the current government system is flawed.

            Also, lol at peaceful
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_t ...
          • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2Yes, but it's the same government of the country you live in that allowed you to earn that money in the first place. Without that government in place, you probably would never have been able to earn a majority of the money that you earned. Without the government, the money would be completely useless. Without the government, I could take your money from you by 'force' and you could do nothing except respond with force or let me have it. The government provides the infrastructure, security, and society that allow us to all be so rich in the first place. Without the government there is no property, there is no law, there is no money.

            You don't have to earn money, but if you do, part of what you earn is not yours, it is the government's. You can think of it as them forcing you to give them that money, or you can think of it as you never having that money. I prefer the latter.
          • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3You seem to present this false dichotomy of THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT and NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL. I'm not advocating either one. I think that I should probably have to pay taxes on roads and cops (and I've even heard some fairly compelling arguments that they too could be privatized, although I'm not in that boat yet). Charity is not a role of government.
          • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2I am presenting no such thing. I am just saying that your government won't work. You don't get to choose what your tax dollars go for. A government like that would never work. I'm saying our government works better than anything I have yet seen, and they have every right to tax you or me.
          • kemp34, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Wow, worshiping at the altar of the state much eh?
      • AngelBunny, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1the average american pays less than $1 a year in taxes for services to help people from starving in our own country. Does that one dollar really matter to you that much?
        • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4Can you cite a source for this $1.00/year claim?
    • casey148, on 05/04/2008, -6/+8"It seems like the government should make sure people don't starve"

      People should make sure people don't starve. If the government has to step in, that's sad.
      • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -6/+4Capitalism creates inequality. No single charity is going to feel responsible for making sure that not one person starves. The government is the only entity that has (or should have) this responsibility.

        When it is someone else's problem, it is the government's problem. In cities of millions of people, the problem becomes unmanageable for single citizens or even single charities.
        • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -3/+3Okay, if the government is supposed to keep all people from starving...

          What if someone refuses to work, but is completely able? Should they automatically get to eat off my dollar? Why?
          • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3Now we are talking about how the government accomplishes this feat, which is a very difficult problem.

            It takes smart ideas and smart programs to make the proper incentives to avoid something like you just said. If something like this is happening on a large scale, someone had better come up with a better idea. As you described it, there really isn't an able bodied human being around that would choose starvation over work. Hopefully the incentive the program is built on isn't that extreme.

            This is really not the original discussion, though. You posed your question in such a way as to take us off of the real topic. Do you think that a society should ever let someone starve to death? I would say no to that question. What about you?
          • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2I believe that yes, a society should allow someone to starve. I would hope that the compassionate, charitable human beings would stop it from happening, but I don't think a legislative government-involved approach is the answer. America is supposedly the most charitable country in the world, per capita. Do you think that people would allow their neighbors to starve?

            It's one of the evils of this world, but it's true: you have no de facto right to food. Food is something that you exchange either goods, services, or currency for. And in some cases, if you know some kind-hearted people, you might be able to get that food for free. But it's no guarantee. I think that about sums it up. We just have ideological differences about the role of government and society.
    • gstep, on 05/04/2008, -2/+6If it seems dumb to give to charities unless you believe 100% in their case, then why do you prefer that the government tax you and spend your money however they want? I assume there's a fair amount of government programs that you disagree with.
      • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -2/+5Certainly, and I will vote for people who agree with me, and continue paying taxes when people I don't agree with get voted in. That's the way our country works.
        • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3"That's the way our country works." adds nothing to a conversation about how the country SHOULD work. Do you think the system is automatically right, just because it's the current one in use? Discussions like this are supposed to make people question the status-quo, not use the non-argument of "That's the way it is, so there." That kind of crap gets us nowhere.
          • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -3/+3Do you know of some better system of government?

            Are you saying that if a minority of people in a country disagree with the government playing the role of a huge charity organization that we should stop?

            My point in saying that this is how the country works is trying to get what we are argueing about down to a single issue. If you have a better idea for government, by all means. Until that day, we vote, and our represented government uses our tax dollars, so there is really no point in argueing about this paradigm.

            So to get to the original argument, yes, I would rather vote and have my tax dollars go to affecting change throughout the whole country and the very social structure of things than give a little bit of money here and there to charities targeting specific individuals and families. So no, I don't believe charities will ever make as much of a difference as the government.
          • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -2/+4"Until that day, we vote, and our represented government uses our tax dollars, so there is really no point in argueing about this paradigm."

            So I should just let it go? There is a country-wide moral injustice (in my eyes), but no I definitely should not argue against it. If discussions are pointless, then there should be no comment system and humans should quit talking about things altogether. Debating is how people learn things and challenge their existing worldviews (if they're not closed-minded morons, anyway).

            Edit: The morons comment is not directed at you, I realize it kind of reads that way.
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4So if some fascists get in power and start hurting people, you'll continue to support them??
    • twomeyw23334, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1Do you agree with the Iraq war? It is much easier to find a charity you agree with a greater percentage of the government, and there is a great chance that I don't agree with the governmental policies you agree with. No matter how you slice/dice it someone is being FORCED to support something they don't agree with. Your comment is a classic example of lazy leftism. You know there are problems out there but don't want to "be bothered" so let big mommy government take care of it in the form of taxes, and people who aren't too lazy to donate / contribute on their own don't have a choice, they must suffer your laziness.
      • slothlovechunk, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4On the contrary. I want the government to work as well as humanly possible. I want to elect smart people with smart solutions to our problems.

        Conservatives, in my opinion, are the lazy ones. Especially the Ron Paul types. They want to roll back government presence to what we had 100 years ago, and then they pretend like the world was a better place 100 years ago. They idealize the past and create an ideology around just cutting government out of everything, without looking at the effects.

        I am a utilitarian and a pragmatist. I do not let ideology make my decisions for me. For the most part, our country has gotten better and better for every generation. It needs tweaking and smart people with smart ideas, not ideologues talking about cutting everything the government does no matter how good that feels. That is real laziness to me. Instead of coming up with solutions to problems, just pretending like problems will solve themselves.
        • twomeyw23334, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1If this were true, you would recognize that large social welfare programs create greater levels of poverty. There is enough history to clearly demonstrate this. You would also recognize that huge tax revenue increases that have occurred throughout US history after tax cuts, especially on the rich. Your ideology, however, is about punishing the rich and not about tax revenues. I honestly can't stand your type of thinking, if you truly are what you claim, so wouldn't ordinarily argue under these premises, but even if you really believe the ends justifies the means, the ends historically gets worse the further left you go, so it would make no sense for you to support liberalism.
        • PeppermintPig, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3If government is the solution, then why not eliminate private property and freedom of choice while we're at it. Obviously only the most intelligent people are capable of running the country, as they are free from moral corruption as well...

          Apathy towards problems is what leads people to serfdom.

          Watch as those who feel they are superior become indignant at dissent and force their beliefs on others. Libertarians don't wish to rule over others.
        • gstep, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Just give up slothlover, every comment makes you sound more and more communist.
    • InRussetShadows, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Wow, I was going to say something, but y'all have already sliced and diced the "lazy leftism" (good phrase) into scraps.
  • source1984, on 05/04/2008, -4/+9Even if they picked a different organization, I wouldn't be surprised on who gave more. It has to do with ideals. I think religion and one's ideals has a lot to do with it. For many religions, it is REQUIRED to give money to those with less than you. For example for Muslims they have to donate a percentage of their salary every year to charity, not to any specific mosque, but to charity.
    • SaperKain, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Please do not bring religion into politics. This video was not praising all religious people. Just the religious right. You know people who use religion to ***** the poor.
      • source1984, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0oh cmon, are we going to pretend the left is religious?? The religious left gives, I've seen it myself. Muslims give, i've seen it myself and they're not left or right. It has to do with ideals which essentially force one to give.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1The poll was for all charities - not just the SA.
  • curme, on 05/04/2008, -11/+4Gays in San Fransisco give more to charity than gays in South Dakota.
  • OddManRush, on 05/04/2008, -7/+19So, does the neighborhood mega-church count as a charity now?
    • casey148, on 05/04/2008, -5/+1Depends on where they are spending the money. Why don't you find out?
  • peaz, on 05/04/2008, -4/+11The disparity between conservative and liberal "giving" is likely more evidence of the fact that conservatives are more likely to tithe to a church than it is of the fact that conservatives are somehow more kind hearted. When you have a large swath of the population giving 10% or more of their income to the church that they attend weekly (who may or may not pass it along to the needy), it's likely more a sign of self interest in your house of worship than it is of compassion or generosity. As for the Salvation Army thing, that "test" has no more scientific validity than measuring climate patterns by sticking my finger out the window.
    • casey148, on 05/04/2008, -4/+1One lady in the video said she gives because she was given to when she needed it. I think your ideas are very similar to Ayn Rand, in that everything is done out of self interest. I disagree. I volunteer to help people because they need it. The "because it makes me feel good" is a side dish that helps sometimes, granted, but it's not the reason I do what I do.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2You may be happy that you're doing more for someone else than for yourself, but it is still wholly motivated from self interest. If you didn't care you would not give.
        • casey148, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0"If you didn't care you would not give."

          That's exactly the thing. I do care about those people, so I give my time. It makes me happy that people appreciate what I do, but I don't go around trying to get an emotional high from it. I still don't think it's done out of self-interest.
      • manitoba98xp, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Ayn Rand's beliefs, from what I understand, were more that everything _should_ be done of self-interest, not that everything _is_. What you're describing is psychological egoism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism ). In either case, why does it matter why people give, as long as they do?
        • casey148, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0I'm not saying that giving (money) is a bad thing, far from it. I am of the opinion, however, that giving time is a much more helpful exercise. As the axiom goes: "Time is more valuable than money".
    • willamette, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Your point is moot....you're just cherry picking the charities that you "like" and the one's you don't. I could make the exact same claim you just made with respect to the ACLU or any other tax-exempt organization, if you choose to believe that they don't "really" pass it on to "the needy" (which isn't a very good gauge for "charity" - plenty of charities don't pass $$ on to the needy but still do very important work). You're not really being generous when you give to an organization tangentially within your self-interest? Under your rubric, how is it even possible to have a meaningful conversation about how much people really give out of "charity"?
    • masterm1nd, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Dude, all conservatives are not Christian and all liberals are not atheist. Quit trying to twist this to fit your preconceptions.
      • clorby, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1He didn't say "all." He said, "[C]onservatives are more likely to tithe to a church..." This is, in fact, a true statement, as people on the right side of the political spectrum in the U.S. are more likely to attend religious services. (look here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-rel ...

        Those more likely to attend are probably more likely to tithe, no? I'm not saying that ALL conservatives go to church. But a whole lot of them do, and a whole lot of liberals don't.
  • asherchang, on 05/04/2008, -13/+18John Stossel also did flawed reports in favor of deregulation of industries and privatization of public services. Pfht.
    • pintomp3, on 05/04/2008, -4/+7you mean blackwater isn't better than our armed forces? next you are going to tell me enron was a bad thing. but it's private, it must be better! how can john stossel be wrong?
    • brad3378, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2please elaborate - what kind of flaws were in his reports?
  • catachip, on 05/04/2008, -2/+10I think the issue here is what constitutes a normal donation and the psychology of money. For example, when you go to give a donation - putting say $3.00 in the S.A. canister might be normal (regardless of your income). Similarly, people might feel a good average donation to charity X is $100. Just because someone makes $80,000/year versus $20,000/year doesn't mean that the richer person thinks of $20 as $5. Similarly, people think of $1000 is a lot money, even if they make $150,000 a year. This, I would guess, is why liberals (who are more often university educated and have a higher income) may have a smaller percentage of their income going to charity than a lower income person.
    • Jassman, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2This is something I never really thought about... Interesting points you bring up here.
    • willamette, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4Good point that probably addresses at least some of the issue. There's an interesting book called something like "The Millionaire Next Door" describing how most of the "super rich" ($200K+ a year) live very middle class lives....buying hondas and cutting coupons, generally living like a family that only earns $50-70K. To most of these people $20 is definitely still $20.
      • AngelBunny, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1some people value retirement more than others. ;)
        I live in an area with 'old' wealth and most of the people live in a 2 or 3 bedroom house with a 10 to 15 year old car, participate in community events, and the average person here has millions. There is different types of ideologies when it comes to money. There is one group who works their ass off to get 300k+ a year easy and wants to show off by buying a new car every year because they are working their ass off for that money and there is the type who was born into the money, relaxes, doesn't spend lots of cash, lives a happy life, and doesn't stress about money. Personally I like the later of the two. Living a happy and relaxed life is soooo much better.
  • rz8472, on 05/04/2008, -14/+18This was a man who said that selling $20 water bottles was a good thing in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I don't trust a word he says.
    • ShadowMerchant, on 05/04/2008, -9/+9The free market solves all problems. If there were someone selling water bottles for $20, there will soon be someone right beside him selling them for $18. Before long the price is down to the pre-disaster level, plus the added cost of buying it elsewhere at retail and driving it into the disaster zone.

      Charity and government cannot possibly supply all the needs of a disaster area. Anti-gouging laws ensure that no private entity is going to bother to take the necessary risks to alleviate those needs. Anti-gouging laws increase net human suffering by keeping critically necessary goods away from those who need them.
      • BabyWookie, on 05/04/2008, -1/+6Oh yes. The magical free market fairly that waves its wand and fixes ever thing.
        • govsucks, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Insulting freedom and the free market while this dumb ass sits on his amazing computer brought to him by competition in the free market. You really have no business enjoying the free market, people like you deserve to live in Cuba where the wonderful and magic Socialism fairy has transported the entire Island back to 1955.
        • BabyWookie, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1@govsucks:

          I thought that you people said that we don't really have a free market in America... that it's actually corporatism? Make up your mind already.
          • govsucks, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Are you or are you not free to go out and purchase what you want. Is someone forcing you to buy something? Why are liberals so ***** stupid?
    • pintomp3, on 05/04/2008, -5/+6holy *****, i thought you were kidding, until i looked it up:
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/7/125113/5426 ...
      john stossel is a giant douchebag. he gives libertarians a bad name.
      • gryphon50, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I love the scenario where the price-gouger, because he sells such high-priced water, has difficulty finding buyers so he still has water for your dying baby, in Stossel's scenario! Price-gouging saves dehydrated babies! I have a more likely scenario though. If you have a $20 bottle of water and my baby is dying from dehydration, I just shoot you and take your water. That is a more likely scenario in my mind.
    • govsucks, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Yeah, cause going and getting hard to find resources and then risking your life to bring them into a horribly damaged area costs the same as normal. /Sarcasm Damn you guys are idiots.
  • theotheragentm, on 05/04/2008, -13/+10This is why I tend to vote conservatively. America's economic system allows me to put things on the line to make it big, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let the government decide where I will give my money. I do believe that we all could do better at giving, including myself. Fortunately I have found some incredible outlets online for giving, where more money is given to where it's needed, not just to charity beauracracy.. kiva.org donorschoose.org
    • SaperKain, on 05/04/2008, -2/+5Charities will never be as effective as government. It is a giant scum to make you feel good. Sometimes I wonder if those ads on TV about starving children in Africa are suppose to help people in Africa or help wash the guilt of conservatives.
      • govsucks, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Its a fact, private charities FAR out give government. Government is a middle man that sucks up resources that could be used for the people truly in need. If you really gave a ***** about the poor, you would put YOUR money in THEIR hands YOURSELF. Then you would KNOW that the people who needed it actually got it. But people like you are content talking freedom from others and then acting like you've done something because someone else's effort was forced from them by your hand.
  • galleryfront, on 05/04/2008, -7/+5And the billions donated by millionaires and billionaires to their own foundations?... wonder if that counts as red or blue?
  • doktorrocket, on 05/04/2008, -11/+7The blood donation discrepancy might be an artifact of who's eligible... I doubt that liberals are any less willing to give blood, but they may be more likely to be disqualified, for things such as overseas travel, body art, certain types of sexual relationships, drug use, etc.
    • asherchang, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4After all, they ban anyone who's had homosex even once from donating blood. And which group, conservatives or liberals, is less tolerant of gays?
    • SaperKain, on 05/04/2008, -5/+3Go ***** yourself.
      • publiclurker, on 05/04/2008, -4/+1No that's masturbation, but I'm sure you already have first hand experience with that.
  • bigredlemon, on 05/04/2008, -11/+18This has NOTHING to do with liberal vs conservative.

    Any psychologist can tell you that how a person responds to another in need depends upon the how many people are around them. If someone is injured and you are the only person nearby, you are very likely to help. (Imagine seeing someone 100ft away who sprained an ankle in a secluded trail.) If you find that same person in a very busy place, you are not likely to help. (Imagine finding that same person someone who sprained an ankle 100ft away in a busy amusement park.)

    This is why if you are stuck in an elevator with one person, you are likely to talk to that person. If you are stuck on a subway with 50 other people, you are far less lilkely to talk to anyone for the same duration.) This also explains why people percieve New Yorkers as rude and people from the rural areas as friendly.

    Similiarly, people from small communities tend to be more giving than people from large communities. It just so happens that people from rural areas tend to be conservative. People from densly populated areas tend to be liberal.

    This story is just another case that correlation does not mean causation. Had they adjusted for population density, I doubt they would anywhere near the same difference, if any difference at all.
    • asherchang, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I agree... whether a person donates to a Salvation Army worker would depend less on ideology than the situation... Situational psychology plays a more important role in predicting behavior in moments like these, while personality predicts a person's actions throughout their lives.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2That works for helping people in distress. I honestly think that fewer Liberals are going to donate to charities because Liberals think that change happens through changing the system to foster better results; e.g. that GOOD government gets you good citizens and good policies. Conservatives (at least these days) seem to think that government is incapable of doing good (ignoring everything that we take for granted in this country), and so are not calling for more accountability of government, preferring to solve these problems by hoping the rich get enough money and religion that someone like Bill Gates is going to donate enough money to solve the starvation in Ethiopia.

      To me, Liberals believe in effecting change, and Conservatives think that you act moral, and that change will happen when everyone goes to heaven.

      Sorry to sound so cynical about that -- but I think it is fair. We just have different views and approaches to the world. There are times when Conservatives are the great backbone of society -- but they've been gamed too long by Big Business, and Churches that are little better than country clubs trying to get political power.
      • r3s0p, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0With that username, i'd say you should apologize for the _lack_ of cynicism.

        Regarding your actual statement though, i'd say it's safe to assume that both sides want the world to be better, they just have different ways of approaching it.
    • Kohaxx, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Dugg for understanding statistics.
  • gstep, on 05/04/2008, -11/+18A lot of people think conservatives are rich selfish pricks who want to keep all of their money for themselves. I think conservatives care just as much about social issues as liberals do, they'd just rather choose who their money goes to instead of the government telling them what they have to fund and be taxed on.
    • pintomp3, on 05/04/2008, -6/+5are you talking about fiscal conservatives or social conservatives? most conservatives are not fiscal conservatives, they are social conservatives. just look at reagan and bush. they hate the thought of money helping the poor, but have no problem spending it on the military, even borrowing trillions to do so. bush jr has taken it to a new level and started giving directly to religious organizations. that is hardly conservative.
  • se1zure, on 05/04/2008, -16/+17I don't understand why people are so anti liberal when liberalism is just defending your basic human liberties.
    • ShadowMerchant, on 05/04/2008, -7/+12So taking my money, ultimately at the point of a gun if necessary, and giving it to a lazy alcoholic is defending my basic human liberty, eh? Thanks, I'll take care of defending my liberties my own self.
      • AngelBunny, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2are you talking about democratic or liberal? they are different things.
    • sphigel, on 05/04/2008, -6/+9Modern day liberalism is an affront to basic human liberties. Modern day liberalism is about the destruction of individual liberty for the greater good.
    • kemp34, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3The main error is that "liberal" and "conservative" in their modern uses are such package deal concepts that not many people truly fit into the package idea of what the terms are used for. As an example, I consider myself a classical liberal, a libertarian, a fiscal conservative, a moderate conservative, and a constitutional republican all in one. I don't fit in the "liberal"/"conservative" false dichotomy and many people do not.
    • InRussetShadows, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2If you don't understand why people are "anti-liberalism" then you don't understand liberalism. Liberalism is primarily about using government to force certain outcomes, which never result, which leads to calls for more government force.
      • se1zure, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2My bad I guess I was confusing modern and classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is soley the defense of human liberties.
  • gstep, on 05/04/2008, -6/+6ERROR IN VIDEO:
    What qualifies Sioux Falls as being rural or small? Sure it's small compared to San Francisco but it's still a metro of more than 180,000 people. Which also, for the record, has a Macy's.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux_Falls,_South_Da ...