Republicans are more charitable than Democrats and Europeans

This time of year it’s common for progressives to view Republicans as a bunch of Scrooges. But when it comes to charity, this simply is not true. Republicans are more generous in their charity giving than either Democrats in the United States or Europeans at large. Further evidence was gathered in a January, 2016 Occasional Planet survey of Americans.

As EthicsDaily.com reports, “Red states – Republican-voting states – are more generous than blue states – Democratic-voting states.” Many conservatives are aware of this disparity and like to crow about it – as if they are the truly compassionate ones. The problem with this contention is that it assumes that all compassion is shown through charity. Many Democrats, who well may contribute less to charities than conservatives do, look at compassion as being more than charity. For most democrats, helping those in need is one of several fundamental roles of government. They contend that government should have primary responsibility for redistributing incomes (and isn’t that in essence is what charity is) should best be done by the federal government because it is the most efficient, effectively targeted, and fair way to help others.

Republicans donate to charity at a higher level than Democrats and the strength of that giving by the GOP propels the U.S. to much higher figures that European Nations. As Investor’s Business Daily reports:

In no European economy are the people more generous with their own money than the people of the U.S. According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data, which have been thoughtfully assembled by Cato scholar Dan Mitchell, the total of Americans’ voluntary social spending reached 10.2% of GDP in 2009, the latest year for which numbers are available.

The only country that is remotely close in its generosity is the Netherlands, where the total was 6% of the nation’s economy. Only two other nations, Canada and the United Kingdom, exceeded 5%. The U.K. totaled 5.3% of GDP, Canada 5.1%.

Republicans have historically promoted more in the way of charitable giving. Their support of large charitable organizations such as traditional religious organizations and welfare organizations like the Red Cross reflect their commitment to trying to help those in need. But truth be told, what they offer to large charitable organization is often less than ten percent of what the federal government provides to address these issues. Most illustrative is an interview by St. Louis Public Radio’s Don Marsh and Congressman Todd Akin when he was running for reelection in 2010.

Akin talks about charity being the solution to providing adequate healthcare for the uninsured. He says, “You can’t cheat mathematics” as the undergirding of his argument. Unfortunately for him it appears that his facts are just not correct; not correct by a factor of 18.

Writing in Forbes Magazine, “Is Charity the Answer To Healthcare?” Carolyn McClanahan points out that in 2010 (the year in which Akin was interviewed), Americans gave a total of $22.83 billion in charity to healthcare. She goes on to state:

To provide coverage for the 50 million uninsured people in our country, based on our latest OECD rate of $7,960 per year, we would need about $398 billion. For charity to fund this, we would have to stop all other charitable pursuits, plus increase our charitable donations by another $108 billion per year.

The $398 billion is over 18 times the $23 billion that Mr. Akin thinks will provide health care for all the uninsured. And Mr. Akin said, “You can’t cheat mathematics.” He is by trade an engineer. I would say if he wanted to succeed in that field, he would have to use real numbers rather than the ones that many Republicans create to make often-invalid political arguments.

Can we say that, in reality, Democrats are eighteen times as charitable as Republicans; or that Europeans are eighteen times as charitable as Americans? That would clearly be a stretch. So while Republicans may give twice as much to charity as Democrats or Europeans, their math is fuzzy. Many of the “welfare states” in Western Europe address problems of poverty, education, and health care by giving the government primary responsibility for providing appropriate remedies. So, while many Americans may think that it is admirable of the country to give a great deal to charity; they might think twice about how much it really addresses fundamental needs. Fortunately there are other approaches, and they are available on a planet near you.

Arthur Lieber Arthur Lieber (452 Posts)

Since 1969, Arthur Lieber has been teaching and working in non-profit educational organizations. His focus has been on promoting critical, creative, and enjoyable learning for students in informal settings. In the 2010 mid-term elections, he was the Democratic nominee for US Congress from Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District.


  • chicano2nd

    Bullshit article. The so called charities conservatives donate to are after our liberties, freedoms and environment. It must be the Missourian in you!

  • Arthur Lieber

    I’m not quite sure of the meaning of your comment. Do you support the charities to which conservatives give or find them to be objectionable?

  • chicano2nd

    Objectionable!

  • danl62

    The truth hurts. You liberals are all talk. Plain and simple. Don’t get me wrong…you libs like charity as long as someone else has to pay for it. Do a search on Google and you will see that there are a lot of articles that confirm this. You guys are nasty.

  • chicano2nd

    You conservatives speak with “forked tongues” or out or your asses!

  • danl62

    You have taken 1st prize for the most stupid person I have seen post. That was probably the dumbest response. I don’t know how you could top that response for being stupid. Congrats.

  • JeromeD

    Arthur, I believe an issue left unaddressed here is that we are factoring in the current cost of the welfare state against charitable spending WITHOUT recalculating what that spending would look like if that money was retained by the citizens in the first place, rather than redistributed by government to these programs. [Which is what the “alternative” welfare state would require, yes?]

    You can expect a signifiant increase. To parity? Certainly not, but significant nonetheless. It’s worth spending some time on.

  • Pingback: Wealthy People and Families: What does current research indicate about the empathy of rich people? - Quora()

  • JustMe

    Regardless of what the government provides for charity, it is still a fact that Republicans still donate more on their own accord. In my opinion, that is not “fuzzy math”. Also, yes, healthcare, costs much more than what is currently donated by both parties, but that does not make Democrats more charitable. Democrats are always “more charitable” when it comes to other people’s money. BTW… I’m not a Republican.

  • saxonglass

    The article’s statement indicating that government gives more to “charity” than republicans is hilarious.

    The government math “give” more than Republicans. Then again, the government has no money of it’s own and gets most of it from Republicans.

  • KC

    Not factored in here is what decrease there might be in the cost of the welfare state if there were actually an incentive for people to get off of welfare. For people who are truly unable to work due to true disability, government could play a meaningful role in providing a living for them. But for capable people, welfare only takes away their desire to work and improve their lot in life. I know, I know. I’m an ugly conservative, right? Actually, I am just angry that two women who are close to me have literally been on welfare their entire adult life. Both are single with children. Both are now in their thirties, with absolutely no job history and no skills. One doesn’t even have her GED. Yes, I get frustrated when I see on Facebook how they’ve spent their day by the pool at their Section 8 apartment complexes while I have been at work. But when I think about them finding a job, I honestly don’t know how they could begin to find a job that would support them and their kids, considering their lack of education and work history. The welfare state they subscribed to as young women has subverted their survival instinct and locked them in for life – and statistics show, probably their children too. But conservatives are the mean ones? Really?

    Republicans give more freely to charity when given the opportunity to do so. Democrats don’t. End of story. If Americans were given the chance to keep more of their money, that statistic would still likely hold true. Republicans would still give more. Democrates still wouldn’t. So Republicans are the generous ones. The only fuzzy math I see is the logic that somehow led you to a different conclusion.

    By the way, your comments about government being the fairest and most efficient way to be charitable made me laugh out loud. Anyone who has ever dealt with the IRS or stood in line at the DMV knows all about needless government bureaucracy. When donating my own time and money, I choose efficient, innovative organizations. The Federal Government is anything but.

    I am a Republican because charity and giving to the poor and needy are important to me. Democrats just abdicate personal responsibility and then act superior. It’s so weird and crazy.

  • Pingback: U.S. Jails Struggle With Role As Makeshift Asylums - Page 2 - Defending The Truth Political Forum()

  • Ageof Doublespeak

    “The government is the most efficient…”

    Thank you for the laugh of the day! You put the best smile on my face in a decade!!

    Hahahahahahahahaha

    The most efficient gawd.

    Explain why blacks are poorer, drop out rates are higher and don’t get me started on crime

  • Ty Brown

    My favorite part of the article was where you put “efficient, effectively targeted, and fair” in the same sentence as ‘government’.

    I couldn’t stop laughing.

    I’d like to see a time in history where there was a government who acted in such a manner. I’m going to have to read more of this site, this is good comedy.

  • MerkMan

    ” best be done by the federal government because it is the most efficient, effectively targeted, and fair way to help others. ” Efficient? Effective? Just goes to show how far from reality the left lives.

  • Duncan France

    “To provide coverage for the 50 million uninsured people in our country, based on our latest OECD rate of $7,960 per year, we would need about $398 billion. For charity to fund this, we would have to stop all other charitable pursuits, plus increase our charitable donations by another $108 billion per year”

    Yeah. There is a simple solution to this. Regulating hospital costs. The United States average cost per hospital stay is more than THREE TIMES the amount of the average of all European hospitals. So by my calculations….the charitable donations alone would’ve more than covered it. And the government work isn’t “charitable” as you state here….in fact it’s many time’s cost prohibitive. What percentage of you’re tax dollar that goes to assistance programs actually gets to the people that need it?

  • Kenny Roberson

    This is hilarious because it is a opinion published as a fact

  • Kenny Roberson

    You rant made absolutely no since you went off on this rant about section 8 housing and what not when what this is about is charity

  • Kenny Roberson

    You made a dumb ignorant comment right there when big government companies get subsidized funding for their business guess where the funding comes from the government same with small start ups businesses

  • danl62

    Now don’t try to deflect. You are a simpleton…a mental midget. We are talking about how uncharitable liberals are. Liberals are mostly all talk. Once in a while you run across a charitable one but not too often and the statistics bear it out. You are out of your league.

  • Kenny Roberson

    you the simpleton you neurologically imbalanced troglodyte you have you are so dumb that did even stop to make sense of the statement that I was making most of people who are republican that give to charities are not your average run of the mill republicans they are the top 1 %percent there talking about and before you say well what about all the liberal celebrities let me make this clear not all of the celebrities are liberal or Identify with the democratic party and not all of them follow politics neither now given that you are a very ,very simple minded guy I going to tell you what I am talking about some of the biggest companies in this country are ran and funded by conservative dollars for example do you know that Sam Walton’s family are worth 16 billon each and yet they cant find it in themselves to give more than 3% in donations with in a year back to the community? it seems like you are the one with metal capacity of a midget who has gone absolutely mental and it seems you need your head examined

  • danl62

    Kenny, Kenny, Kenny. You truly are stupid. You know nothing of Republicans. It isn’t just the top 1% as you suggest. The statistics bear it out. Don’t kill the messenger because of the message. Look at your top Democrats. How much do you think Joe Biden gave to charities last year. I will let you look that up. I know you are mentally challenged so just go to Google. That is a search engine. Do a search on Joe Biden’s charitable giving. Then try to be honest about it. You are stupid and dishonest. Now chill out and don’t forget to take your meds.

  • Kenny Roberson

    HA! HA ! seriously?!? you know it is actually very cute …and a little sad when some one so incredibly stupid tries to call someone else dumb when they clearly don’t have a working brain to start with I mean really where you going with that statement exactly? you compare one man who makes more than the average American than to a family whom each individual member has than and entire city ? you are slow in the head aren’t you can name off many top 1% conservatives that make it look like they are giving back but in actually are just funding their own political financial and business interest you talk about one man I talking about people that own companies see that’s where we differ I have a point and you don’t

  • danl62

    Cute? Cute? you could not come up with a better adjective than that. I only offered Joe Biden because I feared I would overload you. That’s all. Now really. Take your meds. I know. You guys don’t like to take them but it will really smooth things out for you and you may even be able to think rationally.

  • Kenny Roberson

    yes cute it is another way of say that you were dropped on your head as a baby please do by all means go right ahead and overload me as you say you can its not like I don’t have evidence facts to back up my claims and if you where going to overload me so to speak I would think you would have stayed on topic rather than going off topic really and take your meds wow …..ooh ouch that one really hurt you must have spent hours coming up with that one Sherlock you thought it was so nice you even said it twice !

  • danl62

    Kenny, Kenny,Kenny. What a thoughtful, intelligent reply that was. You are a real wordsmith. You are pathetic. To be pitied.

  • Russell Stubbs

    Wait a minute. Who do republicans give to? That info is based on
    tax returns. There is a large group called the religious right. They give a lot
    of money to the church. The church builds large mostly very elaborate
    buildings, pays for various preachers, nuns, bishops, etc, settles large law
    suits for child molesters, buys bibles and misc. expenses to spread “the
    word” then maybe they will help some poor people. It is ironic that this
    money helps poor people because republicans don’t think the lazy bastards are
    “entitled” to it.

  • deanrd

    Republican states are welfare states. When you pay only minimum wage with no benefits, the federal government picks up the tab. This is why Blue States fund the government and Red States suckle.
    Those are both the facts and the math.
    There is a reason Red States go to Blue States like California, New York and Illinois in an attempt to poach jobs and lure educated workers. Because the GOP leadership doesn’t believe in educating their own base. They know education turns people liberal and with most Republicans, education simply doesn’t “take”. Voting Republican proves it.

  • kentonian

    The apostle Paul taught that a wive should be treated as though part of a man’s own body. This was about 400 years before Mohammed was born. Christianity has provided more freedom for religion than any other.

  • kentonian

    Your response made no “sense”. Try again. My question for you is,”Is section 8 housing a charity or a right?”

  • Pingback: BizzyBlog()

  • CC

    The thing is, with all due respect, that (R)’s give more to charity AND they pay the same taxes. One might argue that they pay more in net taxes s it’s far more likely that those receiving government benefits vote (D)

  • pbtown

    “Many Democrats, who well may contribute less to charities than conservatives do, look at compassion as being more than charity. For most democrats, helping those in need is one of several fundamental roles of government. They contend that government should have primary responsibility for redistributing incomes (and isn’t that in essence is what charity is) should best be done by the federal government because it is the most efficient, effectively targeted, and fair way to help others.”

    Arthur, by your argument, if the majority voted to take your retirement account and give it to those who are more in need, those who appropriated your money should be considered ‘compassionate’. You can call that sort of thing ‘compassion’ or ‘redistribution’ but by any name the heart of it is coercion and coercion at the point a gun. Stephan Carter, professor of law at Yale and a well-respected black liberal, recently wrote, “On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.” (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-04/law-puts-us-all-in-same-danger-as-eric-garner).

    If you refuse to pay the portion of your income tax (either personal and business) that goes to charity, the government will send its enforcers. At first they will only be IRS accountant types who will find that you underpaid. If you fail to pay at that point they will lien your property and levy your bank accounts even if that action causes your business to fail. If you still refuse to pay, they will force the sale of your home, clean out your bank accounts and shut down your business. If you refuse to move, they will send men with guns and if you resist they may legally kill you.

    If we take the gun out of the hand of the government enforcers, by your argument, there would be 18 times less money for the poor. Perhaps you think that extra money is worth killing people for. But what if the already generous people in America picked up the slack and donated significantly more out of charitable and moral concerns? Wouldn’t that be a better system than one that requires guns and depends on fear even if the outcome isn’t quite as good for the poor? Wouldn’t that be better for all of us?

  • Dnett

    Russell, you are clearly confused. Most Republican Christians are protestant, not Catholic, which is who you are referring to. Protestant churches tend to spend the contributions they receive on their local community and missions. Catholics as a group tend more often to vote Democrat.

  • Russell Stubbs

    Nowhere did I say the Catholic church only. My statement was about “the” church, meaning all churches. The Mormon church (some experts consider them protestant) is the worst, giving just .7% of it’s total income to actual charity. The best numbers I can find say that of all churches 71% of the contributions go to operating costs. The Red Cross spends just 7.9% and 91% of it’s revenue goes to help the needy. Religions are not held to the same standards as other non profit organizations. The more money you make the more likely you are to be republican. Therefor republicans have more money to give. Of all voters in America 63% of people making over 200,000 a year vote republican. The top 1% of Americans control 60% plus of wealth, that is one heck of a lot of money that democrats don’t have to give.

  • Kenny Roberson

    well given the fact that it was created back in during the depression for middle class whites to sustain the living environment that they had come accustomed and to help the white work population get back in on it feet yeah I think it is necessary now after America had regained it foot hold it was retooled just in time for the civil rights era so there you go

  • Kenny Roberson

    thank you I know I am intelligent and I do indeed have way with words I didn’t need you to tell me that but thank you never the less you besides dropping that little pearl at my doorstep you really didn’t really say much of anything of substance now did you……. oops! I don’t think you did !!!!!! SHOCKER!

  • Kenny Roberson

    I still waiting for you to say something of relevance that is going to carry some weight in this conversation ……oh but nothing yet hmph! not surprised I think you the one that is overloaded and overwhelmed in this conversation not me

  • Kenny Roberson

    seriously is Joe Biden all you got cause I Believe that is all you got that says you know dick about diddly in this conversation you just want someone to argue with and I love a good argument but with someone of superior or equal intellect and believe me you have neither when did I talk about Joe Biden ? I was talking about Democrats in general and you were the ass that decided to address me that how we got here so why don’t you go have a glass of wine take your whole bottle of pills and honestly I don’t give a fuck what kind of pills they are just take a whole bottle of them and have a fucking seat k? can you do that ?

  • Pingback: Bill Clinton Has A Terrific Reason For Accepting $500,000 Per Speech: 'I Gotta Pay Our Bills'()

  • Tracy Lund

    You know nothing Jon Snow.

  • Tracy Lund

    You are missing the point entirely.

  • Tracy Lund

    Explain this math, it must me some new fangeled new math you’re using to come up with this tripe.

  • Tracy Lund

    You need to look no further than the Netherlands…well, go on, go look. By the way, conservatives don’t really understand comedy, and rarely seem to get past a second graders appreciation for it.

  • Tracy Lund

    It’s a right.

  • Tracy Lund

    Ok, I won’t get you started on crime. It would be a waste of time trying to talk to you about just about anything of substance. Bigot.

  • Tracy Lund

    You are spot on!

  • Tracy Lund

    Said the guy publishing his “truthiness” as fact. But hey, it’s just my opinion.

  • Tracy Lund

    You wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in your stingy ass.

  • Ty Brown

    Netherlands!?!?!

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  • chicano2nd

    That is all you have you dumb worm!

  • democrat CockRoach

    So barry dragging in HALF the third world and using OUR money for it is somehow charity to democrats??? What a JOKE.

    Plus, what exactly is the liberal’s definition of “refugee” anyway??? Our government defines a refugee as someone from a war torn area OR suffering human rights violations.

    Being POOR in central America does not constitute being a refugee especially notice you’re NOT seeing any ribs on the fat little fake “refugees” they actually look VERY well fed to me.

  • democrat CockRoach

    Plus, democrat’s don’t use OUR wallets for their fake charity because they’re such good little Godless souls, they do it to GROW their crappy socialist invasive government. BIG difference.

  • democrat CockRoach

    And isn’t it just amazing that we NEVER had the democrat’s crappy WELFARE STATE until 1965 and NO ONE WAS STARVING.

  • Demogorgon

    It’s not about efficiency or effectiveness, its about fairness and equality.

  • Demogorgon

    Who do republicans give to? That info is based ontax returns. There is a large group called the religious right. They give a lot of money to the church. The church builds large mostly very elaborate buildings, pays for various preachers, nuns, bishops, etc, settles large lawsuits for child molesters, buys bibles and misc. expenses to spread “the word” then maybe they will help some poor people. It is ironic that this money helps poor people because republicans don’t think the lazy bastards are”entitled” to it.
    Nowhere did I say the Catholic church only. My statement was about “the” church, meaning all churches. The Mormon church (some experts consider them protestant) is the worst, giving just .7% of it’s total income to actual charity. The best numbers I can find say that of all churches 71% of the contributions go to operating costs. The Red Cross spends just 7.9% and 91% of it’s revenue goes to help the needy. Religions are not held to the same standards as other non profit organizations. The more money you make the more likely you are to be republican. Therefor republicans have more money to give. Of all voters in America 63% of people making over 200,000 a year vote republican. The top 1% of Americans control 60% plus of wealth, that is one heck of a lot of money that democrats don’t have to give. Buy the way, having more money than someone else does not make you better in any way, to me it sometimes makes you worse.

  • greyfox

    Sounds like you really know what you’re talking about. it also sounds like a very narrow view of the subject.

  • Big Leo

    You are totally out of it about religious charities. I might point out that the most popular charities among the left serve their own needs, like historical societies, music subsidies, bird watching charities and so on. We also give far more of our time.

  • Big Leo

    GOP states get more Federal money because they provide more Federal services. That tired old lie isn’t believed by anybody. Of course, since you think all government money is welfare, you think the Border Patrol, national parks, military,and defense industries are all welfare, too.

    More education doesn’t turn people liberal. The average level of both income and education is higher among the GOP than among the Dems. YOu really have nothing.

  • Demogorgon

    My statement was about “the” church, meaning all churches. The Mormon church (some experts consider them protestant) is the worst, giving just .7% of it’s total income to actual charity. The best numbers I can find say that of all churches 71% of the contributions go to operating costs. The Red Cross spends just 7.9% and 91% of it’s revenue goes to help the needy. Religions are not held to the same standards as other non profit organizations. The more money you make the more likely you are to be republican. Therefor republicans have more money to give. Of all voters in America 63% of people making over 200,000 a year vote republican. The top 1% of Americans control 60% plus of wealth, that is one heck of a lot of money that democrats don’t have to give. Buy the way, having more money than someone else does not make you better in any way, to me it sometimes makes you worse.

  • Tzvi Grossman

    Being charitable with your own money is virtuous. being charitable with other peoples money is stealing…

  • Vince Stagbaugh

    “Fairness” and “Equality” are two emotion-based buzz words liberals like to throw around as though the they are the ones who get to define them.
    When it comes down to it, liberals want to help the “downtrodden” and “helpless” – they just want to do it with other people’s money.

  • Vince Stagbaugh

    It’s not about the total amount Republicans give vs Democrats. It’s about the percentage of their income they give. Republicans give twice as much as Democrats.

  • Vince Stagbaugh

    Duh!

  • Vince Stagbaugh

    Kenny – if you filled out a job application like you write, you are not going to get that shelf stocking job at Kroger. Not even the janitor position.

  • Tor Sutton

    This article was written by democrat who ran for a Missouri’s state government position….and lost.

  • disqus_fvYC0zRLxl

    The government is not efficient. You figure for every dollar you give the federal government more than 50% of it is spent on administrative costs. So only .50 cents go to those in need, whereas most non profits are very efficient in managing their money. Most have administrative costs of 25% or less. So you figure republicans are still paying their taxes and donating money. If the tax burden was not so high I bet more would be given and it would be used more efficiently!

  • Pingback: Americans are too charitable - Occasional Planet()

  • Pingback: Means-tested welfare. What does that even mean today? | The Rugged Individualist()

  • Deirdre Campbell

    What’s fair or equal about the “government” taking what someone has earned? You want fair and equal, go to a socialist country where everyone is poor.

  • deanrd

    Religion is a scam
    Most Charities are scams. I was reading that 6 of the top 50 paid zero to the people they said they were helping. Many others paid less than 10%.
    That’s where GOP donations go to.
    Democrats tend to give to political organizations to target the places that really need the money. Republicans have done a great job scaring and tricking Americans. Remember the last mid term? Ebola, infected children and an immanent Isis attack? And before that? Iraq? Vaccines?
    Democratic Plan: Teach a man to fish………..
    Republican plan: Move his job to China, close his factory, then tell him he’s lazy to not be working.

    Democrats want the government to work for all of us.

    Republicans want the church and Business to BE the government.

  • Pingback: Why is it that in the USA; people with low income are more likely to be right wing?()

  • jonp

    so your saying Republicans are more charitable with their own money and Democrats are more charitable with other peoples money? Got it.

  • jonp

    “fairness and equality” ie. give me your money so I can give it away to others

  • Pingback: Addressing hunger: Republicans say charity; Dems say government - Occasional Planet()

  • Kurt 20008

    I’m familiar with that research and if you dig into the data, you find several facts:
    1. Half of charitable giving is done by people over 65. Older people are more likely to call themselves conservatives. If you hold steady for age, the conservative advantage in charitable giving disappears.
    2. The largest beneficiary of charitable giving is for the maintenance of one’s own house of worship. (I,e, your own parish church – the heat, lights, building repair, minister’s salary, etc.). Certainly those who belong to a parish/congregation have a responsibility towards it. Again if you hold steady for religious and non-religious persons, the conclusion flips. Religious liberals are the most generous, religious conservatives second, non-religious liberals third. Non-religious conservatives are the least generous. However, more secular people say they are liberal.
    3. Even factoring out religious giving, don’t assume charitable giving means relief for the poor. Much of charitable giving is to one’s college or prep school, the opera or symphony, animal welfare, medical research, etc. Liberals are more likely to give to programs that target the root causes of poverty.

  • Kurt 20008

    Like Sweden

  • Arthur Lieber

    Thanks, Kurt, I really appreciate these thoughts. I wish that I had dug down deeper as you have. However, I have seen other research indicating that since many liberals think that government programs are the best way to address our national needs that they may use that line of reasoning to justify less charitable giving.

  • Leah Demetrius

    Socialism turns peoples into robots who work for government and not for themselves. Socialism cannot buy as much as capitalism. We tried to shop in Canada and almost threw up from ugly super expensive things that you only could buy there. Crazy price for sadly looking things… Some ugly shoes that my grandma would not wear cost $100 there while I can buy the best looking pair for $25 in US. Everybody was dressed like they all shopped in Walmart – all wearing the same grey or black coat of the same style and bad quality. Socialists are always angrier and look to be more stressed and less happy than people in US. If you want to see happy people, come to USA airport, only when door starts opening to USA, you will already see smiling faces. Never else in the world I saw that!!!! Would that prove something? It should if you are smart and can see! Charity and government should be separated (was told once by USA Democratic president long ago). How come it changed with Democrats? It did happen in USA that charity and government were separate, and that was time when USA pretty much had no debt and Democrat president. When I came here from socialist country, I could not understand democrats – why do they want to create more government and taxes? Things were working well without that – I went to work, my cost of medical care was $25 co-pay. Homeless person on the street got sick, and went to hospital where doctors were donating their free time – he got all the help and surgery he needed there for free. So did my friends’ mother, who had no insurance – doctors volunteered their service and helped her. So my other friends – or they paid $25 co-pay, or in some other periods of time when they were out of work and got in trouble – went to free hospital and used help there. They got free food, free clothes, all volunteers provided. Why to push socialism on top of all that and make it like every other boring stressed sad country of this world? Keep the USA safe from socialism please! Please leave at least one country in the world not ruined with socialism! My mom does not have insurance so what? I found a doctor which took only $40 cash for the visit and helped her, she is not sick anymore. Where else in the world can you get this? Why do I need socialism again? I work like crazy do not have enough money to buy a house – because government takes away all my money already. Why would I want more taxes and socialism? I do not want it! You do not want to be government slaves, believe me. Even poorest people are much better without it.

  • Arthur Lieber

    I do indeed appreciate your thoughts. Your assertions seem to be backed up by your experiences. I differ somewhat, in concluding that a social safety net makes people more secure and thus happier.

  • make edwards

    There is nothing quite like having the Liberals throw the generosity of Conservatives back in their faces.

  • make edwards

    Liberals in general don’t like the truth. It exposes their hypocritical thinking.

  • make edwards

    Yes…Except your point is on the top of your head, Kenny.

  • marlette782

    and who do democrats give their money too? Humans in need? No to the beastly polar bears.

  • Hello Web Admin, I noticed that your On-Page SEO is is missing a few factors, for one you do not use all three H tags in your post, also I notice that you are not using bold or italics properly in your SEO optimization. On-Page SEO means more now than ever since the new Google update: Panda. No longer are backlinks and simply pinging or sending out a RSS feed the key to getting Google PageRank or Alexa Rankings, You now NEED On-Page SEO. So what is good On-Page SEO?First your keyword must appear in the title.Then it must appear in the URL.You have to optimize your keyword and make sure that it has a nice keyword density of 3-5% in your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread all H1,H2,H3 tags in your article.Your Keyword should appear in your first paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You should have relevant usage of Bold and italics of your keyword.There should be one internal link to a page on your blog and you should have one image with an alt tag that has your keyword….wait there’s even more Now what if i told you there was a simple WordPress plugin that does all the On-Page SEO, and automatically for you? That’s right AUTOMATICALLY, just watch this 4minute video for more information at. Seo Plugin

  • Pingback: Addressing hunger: Republicans say charity; Dems say government - Occasional Planet()