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

[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. 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:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 06-16-2008. 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 Rating: 5

[40oz]

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.

[psteve]

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

[stinkyattic]

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.

[Psycho4Bud]

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.

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:

[stinkyattic]

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.

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.

[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.

[stinkyattic]

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!!!)

[Psycho4Bud]

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:

[Psycho4Bud]

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: