DNC....The "All About Me" Party

Liberal contributions tend be less compassionate, donating to cultural causes like museums and symphonies rather than human-service organizations that conservatives prefer. A comparison of charitable giving by the radio talk host Rush Limbaugh and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proved the point, Schweizer argued. According to his analysis, Limbaugh gives to organizations that help Alzheimer's patients, hospice residents, orphans and children with AIDS.

Overwhelmingly, Rush Limbaughâ??s contributions to charity go to individuals who have absolute needs. If you look at Nancy Pelosi, itâ??s the opposite. There are contributions to the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco, which is the largest of her contributions. There are contributions to the San Francisco Symphony. Contributions to a prep school...an elite prep school in San Francisco. But with the exception of an occasional contribution to say the boys and girls club of San Francisco of maybe $1,000 or so, very little actually goes to needy individuals.

Conservatives are more generous because modern liberals believe the government should take care of the less fortunate, Schwiezer argues. "Conservatives believe responsibility is a good thing, you can improve your lot in life," he said. "Modern liberals do not."
Are Conservatives Happier than Liberals? - The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Kind of ironic if ya ask me....aren't the dems proclaiming more concern for the poor folk?

Have a good one!:s4:

Millionaires donating money...call me crazy but I don't see the huge deal about somebody who has more money than they know what to do with donating it to the needy. Sure it's great, but its not really a huge sacrifice or anything. All the millionaires in the world could donate to the poor, but the poor would still be there.

I picture it as kids playing in a sandbox. The biggest kids kick the little ones out of the sandbox so they can enjoy it all themselves, but somewhere down the line one of the big kids suggests they give a little bit of sand to the kids outside the box, because they have nothing and they look bored. So they give the little kids some sand and they feel really good about themselves and they congratulate eachother for being so generous and then continue to play in the sandbox while the other kids just watch on with a handful of sand.

Thats just my opinion. I agree though that it is a bit ridiculous that somebody would donate money to a museum. It doesn't really doesn't improve anything that needs improving.

RNC... The "All About Money" Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Kind of ironic if ya ask me....aren't the dems proclaiming more concern for the poor folk?

---

Yes, and doing it in ways that are more sustainable. Personal wealth is a fleeting thing; national fiscal policy lasts at least through an administration, and well-planned programs are meant to last decades.
Do we want our poor to be subject to the whims of the wealthy, who use donations as tax writeoffs when their personal fortunes are in good shape, and might not donate at all in lean times?
I see the idea of responsibility for our nation's struggling as one that needs to be a collective effort.
Non-profit arts and education organizations are designed to be supported by donations. I feel, and I'm sure many others would agree, that while as taxpayers we should not be expected to pay for, say, an art museum in a city a thousand miles away, having wealthy philanthropists pick up the slack is a good solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

Yes, and doing it in ways that are more sustainable. Personal wealth is a fleeting thing; national fiscal policy lasts at least through an administration, and well-planned programs are meant to last decades.
Do we want our poor to be subject to the whims of the wealthy, who use donations as tax writeoffs when their personal fortunes are in good shape, and might not donate at all in lean times?
I see the idea of responsibility for our nation's struggling as one that needs to be a collective effort.

---

Financial status
The Pelosi family has a net worth of over US$25 million, primarily from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, she also has millions of dollars in stock from publicly traded companies such as Microsoft, Amazon.com and AT&T. In 2003, the Pelosi family sold their eight-acre (three hectare) Rutherford vineyard. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress
Nancy Pelosi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about when the wealthy don't apparently give a rats ass about Alzheimer's patients, hospice residents, orphans and children with AIDS? Seems that ol' Nancy likes the bucks in her pockets or donations to things that the needy could really care less about.

When people of this caliber ask for higher taxes out of everyones pockets you would think that they'd be sparing a bit of change themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

Non-profit arts and education organizations are designed to be supported by donations. I feel, and I'm sure many others would agree, that while as taxpayers we should not be expected to pay for, say, an art museum in a city a thousand miles away, having wealthy philanthropists pick up the slack is a good solution.

---

I agree but once again I don't think that Nancy would:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McEz2l1EvDs[/YOUTUBE]

Nice to see ya in the politics arena.....looking forward to some good debates!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

What about when the wealthy don't apparently give a rats ass about Alzheimer's patients, hospice residents, orphans and children with AIDS?

---

I have to take issue with the wording of this statement. A dedication to public policy reform that would benefit these groups hardly constitutes 'not giving a rat's ass' in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

When people of this caliber ask for higher taxes out of everyones pockets you would think that they'd be sparing a bit of change themselves.

---

Indeed. They will be, since their own tax bills will increase. Again, it's not the place of benevolent individuals to shoulder personal responsibility for all of our nation's poor. Is it nice to see them help in some way? Certainly. But that does not mean we should make public policy that counts on them to do it over the long term.

As an aside... some of the most 'charitable' people I know act like a 'benevolent' king giving the peasants a few coins for the pleasure of seeing them grovel, and it makes me ill.

This post is acting like Art Museums and Symphonies aren't things that people should give money to. Without these we would have a very boring, uncultured, bland society. Art and Music are EXTREMELY important.

Rush Limbaugh trying to pad his dirty conscience by donating money to sick children is not news worthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katyowns

Rush Limbaugh trying to pad his dirty conscience by donating money to sick children is not news worthy.

---

^^^That's what I'm sayin' ^^^
I think he does if just for the publicity, and to make himself seem less of a prick... (oops did I just say that? YES I DID!!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

I have to take issue with the wording of this statement. A dedication to public policy reform that would benefit these groups hardly constitutes 'not giving a rat's ass' in my eyes.
Indeed. They will be, since their own tax bills will increase. Again, it's not the place of benevolent individuals to shoulder personal responsibility for all of our nation's poor. Is it nice to see them help in some way? Certainly. But that does not mean we should make public policy that counts on them to do it over the long term.

---

You said it yourself about the tax writeoffs. A bit of a bump won't hurt Pelosi's millions as compared to the middle class. I'm sure another fine donation to the arts will offset that.

As they say, "Charity Begins at Home"....the only thing is she seems to feel that it shouldn't be hers.

As for the shared burdon on all the nation with mandates when she seems to be so tight....."Do as I say and not as I do" comes to mind.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katyowns

This post is acting like Art Museums and Symphonies aren't things that people should give money to. Without these we would have a very boring, uncultured, bland society. Art and Music are EXTREMELY important.

Rush Limbaugh trying to pad his dirty conscience by donating money to sick children is not news worthy.

---

People should give to those things BUT I think that they should be lower on the priority list than donations to PEOPLE that need the assistance. Blow a new horn or save a child.....seems pretty clear.

As for Rush....don't care for ALOT of his views but I will tip my hat to the man for his contributions.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

^^^That's what I'm sayin' ^^^
I think he does if just for the publicity, and to make himself seem less of a prick... (oops did I just say that? YES I DID!!!)

---

I was opting to stay out of this thread because really I feel this is a moot topic. As everyone knows I despise both parties; and at the same time acknowledge that there are some good people in them.

With that said; considering who the donation was made to.. who cares if he did it to see like less of a prick or out of sincerity. The children are still reaping the benefits regardless if you think he's a jackass or not.

That's all that's important to me in this regard.


Also I think P4B's argument was the irony of liberal democrats, who argues that the middle class should receive more support from the rich and large corporations, opted not to take money from their own pockets and place it back into the hands of the middle class in the form of donations. While as the right (at least in Rush Limbaugh's case), who everyone seems to bash (it seems to be the popular trend for at least since the Reagan administration), pulls money out of their own pockets to give it to people who truely need it.

In short, the irony being that Democrats who say that the Rich need to contribute more to the poor and middle class seem to not practice what they preach on a PERSONAL level; as opposed to the right (or in this one situation Rush Limbaugh) who regardless of what his motivation was... did practice what the Left preaches. Let's face it; most politicians are among the rich whether they be Left or Right.


While museums and such are nice; they are luxuries and not necessities.

With all that said; I feel you should be able to donate money to whoever you feel like it without being criticized. As the name suggests they are donations and being that we live in America we should be able to do with our money what we wish. :thumbsup:

I only chimed in to clarify the confusion. I agree with no one in this thread.. lol :hippy:

Lest my statements be misinterpreted- I feel that the rich are the rich are the rich, PERIOD- REGARDLESS of party affiliation. It's an economic class thing, and I'll be the first person to say that I don't really like the idea of national fiscal policy being made by people whose life experience, with some notable exceptions, does not reflect that of 99.9% of the population.

The phrase 'out of touch with reality' seems to be fitting the American ruling class increasingly well these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

I'll be the first person to say that I don't really like the idea of national fiscal policy being made by people whose life experience, with some notable exceptions, does not reflect that of 99.9% of the population.

The phrase 'out of touch with reality' seems to be fitting the American ruling class increasingly well these days.

---

AGREED! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Liberal contributions tend be less compassionate, donating to cultural causes like museums and symphonies rather than human-service organizations that conservatives prefer. A comparison of charitable giving by the radio talk host Rush Limbaugh and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proved the point, Schweizer argued.

---

This guy is "proving" liberal contributions tend be less compassionate than conservatives donations based on a comparison of charitable giving by Rush Limbaugh and Nancy Pelosi?

This is one of the most idiotic conclusions I have ever heard made based on the flimsiest evidence I can imagine.

I think maybe you need a better sample group to support your thesis, Schweizer.

If we stick with this sample group, we will have to conclude that conservatives are both fatter than liberals and more prone to perscription drug abuse. It's moronic.

I do not have any statistics or a link to support this, but I have heard that the poor are far more giving than the rich when it comes to donations to charity. I think that is a lot more telling than the idea that the kinds of donations made by conservatives are any "better" than those made by liberals.