Who's More Charitable?

[Paschendale]

This is hilarious! First you qualify your statement about these programs with your credentials, then, when I give my credentials, you pull the "anecdotes aren't evidence" line out? Try not to be so bleeding obvious with your double standards in the future! :lamo

There are no double standards. I only brought up my personal experience to show that yours was wrong. A century of data that you would prefer to ignore demonstrates that social programs work. My personal experiences are merely one data point. Yours are too, but they aren't very credible, since you tend to ignore the aforementioned data in order to support your frankly detestable positions that demonize anyone who struggles to pay their bills. It's sad.

 

[TurtleDude]

Unadulterated nonsense. You still haven't admitted the original premise was true ... you are merely fumbling for ways to excuse the selfishness of the left.

years ago, a non-political friend of mine noted that politics really comes down to one issue. Do you think its your duty to take care of yourself or is it the government's. "liberals" tend to answer in the latter and tend to outsource many things us libertarians or economic conservatives see as personal duties. saving for retirement, defending one's property and family.


so it makes sense that many lefties see charity as yet another duty for government to do. They figure if they vote for income redistributionists,they have done their charitable duty. and as noted before, when rich liberals give to "charity" its normally to organizations that advocate or lobby for more income redistribution

 

[GBFAN]

The very organization you are citing (Charity Navigator), in a joint statement with BBB Wise Giving Alliance and GuideStar, warned people against using overhead costs as a measure of a charitie's performance.
http://overheadmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GS_OverheadMyth_Ltr_ONLINE.pdf

Having said that, when I check Charity Navigator it shows American Red Cross as using 90.4% of its finances for Program Expenses, with only 3.8% going towards administrative expenses and 5.6% towards fundraising. So, I'm confused as to where you get your information. The website you recommended contradicts you about both the numbers you cited and whether those numbers are meaningful.

Let's see .. 90% + 3.8% + 5.6% = 99.4% .... my mistake ... I didn't bother to do the actual math --- 90 + 3 + 5 = 98 , so my comment about 2% was actually way over optimistic. The point is still made.

 

[GBFAN]

No, you don't get the point. All those numbers don't necessarily have anything to do with the needy.... they have to do with the "program", whatever it may be (for example, the "program" could be distributing bibles or condoms). Again, you're describing all charity as focused towards the "needy" but clearly that is wrong (some of it is going for secular purposes, or in the case of the LDS some of it is going towards building shopping malls).

Actually, you're not even close ... those numbers are developed from the Form 990 submitted to the IRS. If you were familiar with the tax reporting, you would realize what i said is true. I assume we have a CPA somewhere among the membership who will be glad to explain it to you.

 

[jmotivator]

There are no double standards. I only brought up my personal experience to show that yours was wrong.

So your idea of "not a double standard" is that your anecdotal experience has value and the ability to prove others "wrong" while my anecdotal experience does not?

 

[CrabCake]

Let's see .. 90% + 3.8% + 5.6% = 99.4% .... my mistake ... I didn't bother to do the actual math --- 90 + 3 + 5 = 98 , so my comment about 2% was actually way over optimistic. The point is still made.

Then I guess I'm not understanding your point. The source you cited contradicts you about the usefulness of overhead expenses as a measure of effectiveness and also shows that over 90% of the red cross' earnings go directly towards their mission, less than 10% being spent on overhead.

 

[RAMOSS]

One of the funny things is that I noticed conservatives consider giving tithes to the church as part of their charitable contributions. Yet, the majority of their contributions to the church go to church maintenance, classes for the kids, paying for the pastor, and in other words, directly benefiting the person giving the 'tithe'.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Recently, a Chronicle of Philanthropy study evaluating the giving patterns of conservatives and liberals revealed that liberals are an uncharitable bunch:
People who live in deeply religious regions of the country — the solid-red states of the Bible Belt and Utah — give more of their income to charity than those who don’t. Of the top 10 most generous states, according to a Chronicle of Philanthropy study based on itemized charitable contributions among people who made at least $50,000, nine voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. – One Thing Red States Do Better Than Blue States (INFOGRAPHIC)

People who live in deeply religious regions of the country — the solid-red states of the Bible Belt and Utah — give more of their income to charity than those who don’t. Of the top 10 most generous states, according to a Chronicle of Philanthropy study based on itemized charitable contributions among people who made at least $50,000, nine voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.

Doesn’t that fly in the face of conventional wisdom?

Which Political Party Is More Charitable? | National Review Online

Liberals are very generous........but only with other peoples money.

 

[MAGAnificent]

years ago, a non-political friend of mine noted that politics really comes down to one issue. Do you think its your duty to take care of yourself or is it the government's. "liberals" tend to answer in the latter and tend to outsource many things us libertarians or economic conservatives see as personal duties. saving for retirement, defending one's property and family.


so it makes sense that many lefties see charity as yet another duty for government to do. They figure if they vote for income redistributionists,they have done their charitable duty. and as noted before, when rich liberals give to "charity" its normally to organizations that advocate or lobby for more income redistribution

To the left.....the government is: "mama....dada".

 

[Keithknight13]

Do you really think that the poor don't know how to fish? farm? The problems they face are famine, drought, war, corrupt governments.
What salary does an intern get? squat, mostly....
The business world is as corrupt as it gets, they have the funds to buy or rent congress to enact laws that benefit business.
The LDS charities are supported not by tithing but by "Fast Offerings". You fast a day, and donate money that goes 100% to charitable needs. Fasting helps you feel a little of the hunger of much of the 3rd world. There is no overhead, the church donates the use of facilities. There are no salaries for the full time staff, they are serving a mission at their own expense. There is some income for temporary employees who are there for job training. If you ever find yourself in Salt Lake city, take a tour of Welfare Square.

Joseph Smith would be proud.