Southerners more charitable?

[AuH2O]

http://channels.netscape.com/pf/story.jsp?id=2005112020440001872677&dt=20051120204400&w=APO&coview=&floc=mo-main-01-l1

Sounds about right to me.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

#5 baby, ohh yeah!  I think there was another study that showed Tennessee being most generous... so this survey must be slightly  flawed

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Another fact from the survey: The top 25 most charitable states all voted for Bush.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

[memphis]

This is true because people in the South give lots of money to their churches. Plus, the study was per income and the South has on average lower incomes.

[opebo]

Charity is demeaning.  Entitlements are much better.

[MODU]

Charity is demeaning.  Entitlements are much better.

Entitlements are just a form of government-funded charities.  So, entitlements are then demeaning. 

[Cubby]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That line was great news. 

Around here even the Republicans donate to Planned Parenthood.

[John Dibble]

Charity is demeaning.  Entitlements are much better.

Entitlements are just a form of government-funded charities.  So, entitlements are then demeaning. 

The funny thing is that opebo lives off the charity of his parents.

[Gabu]

We've been over this topic before.  The conclusion reached at that time is that Southerners, on average, go to church more than those in, say, New England, and given that every single time you go to church, it's suggested that you donate some money, it makes sense that churchgoers would be more charitable than non-churchgoers.

A better thing to measure, in my opinion, that would really measure the level of charitability, would be the rate of completely voluntary, non-prompted donations, such as donations to the Red Cross or something like that.

Of course, there are also other arguments given by the Boston Foundation for why this measure is not a good one that you seem to have ignored.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It should also be pointed out that people with lower incomes tend (just about everywhere) to give a higher % of their income to charities than people with higher incomes. The top ten states are:

1. MS
2. AR
3. SD
4. OK
5. TN
6. AL
7. LA
8. UT
9. SC
10. WV

Spot a trend? With the exception of Utah (and we all know why Utah is so high) these are low income states.
I should probably point out that church attendence in New England is actually pretty high for the most part.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

We've been over this topic before.  The conclusion reached at that time is that Southerners, on average, go to church more than those in, say, New England, and given that every single time you go to church, it's suggested that you donate some money, it makes sense that churchgoers would be more charitable than non-churchgoers.

A better thing to measure, in my opinion, that would really measure the level of charitability, would be the rate of completely voluntary, non-prompted donations, such as donations to the Red Cross or something like that.

Of course, there are also other arguments given by the Boston Foundation for why this measure is not a good one that you seem to have ignored.

What's wrong if people are "prompted" to donate to something?  The world would be a much better place if everyone thought they were going to Hell if they didn't help one another.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah, northerners pay more in taxes and living expenses. Our taxes go to subsidize the ungreatful people in the south.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It should also be pointed out that people with lower incomes tend (just about everywhere) to give a higher % of their income to charities than people with higher incomes. The top ten states are:

1. MS
2. AR
3. SD
4. OK
5. TN
6. AL
7. LA
8. UT
9. SC
10. WV

Spot a trend? With the exception of Utah (and we all know why Utah is so high) these are low income states.
I should probably point out that church attendence in New England is actually pretty high for the most part.

Let's see here's those states rankings in getting money from the feds.

MS $1.83 (3)
AR $1.47 (13)
SD $1.49 (11)
OK $1.48 (12)
TN $1.29 (20
AL $1.69 (6)
LA $1.47 (14)
UT $1.19 (22)
SC $1.36 (15)
WV $1.82 (4)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Notice a pattern? Not one of those states got back less than $1.19 for every dollar they sent to the feds.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Let's see here's those states rankings in getting money from the feds.

MS $1.83 (3)
AR $1.47 (13)
SD $1.49 (11)
OK $1.48 (12)
TN $1.29 (20
AL $1.69 (6)
LA $1.47 (14)
UT $1.19 (22)
SC $1.36 (15)
WV $1.82 (4)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Notice a pattern? Not one of those states got back less than $1.19 for every dollar they sent to the feds.

So? These are (as pointed out before) poor states (with one exception. And that exception has a serious poverty problem in places). What's the problem with a bit of redistribution now and again?

[phk]

If you curved for income, it would be much more in New England's favor.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see here's those states rankings in getting money from the feds.

MS $1.83 (3)
AR $1.47 (13)
SD $1.49 (11)
OK $1.48 (12)
TN $1.29 (20
AL $1.69 (6)
LA $1.47 (14)
UT $1.19 (22)
SC $1.36 (15)
WV $1.82 (4)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Notice a pattern? Not one of those states got back less than $1.19 for every dollar they sent to the feds.

So? These are (as pointed out before) poor states (with one exception. And that exception has a serious poverty problem in places). What's the problem with a bit of redistribution now and again?

You fail to take into account cost of living. Also, in 2000, the average Republlican congressional district had $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Much of this is just pork that doesn't help the poor, while the poor in CA, NY, and so on are being ignored.

You have previously shown that you don't give a sh**t about the poor in states like NY or CA.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You fail to take into account cost of living.

No matter how you measure it Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta are a hell of a lot poorer than the San Francisco Bay Area. I don't really see the problem with taking money from rich areas to spend on poor areas. But then again, I'm not a hypocrite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? The party in the Majority gets to spend more money on it's incumbents than the party in the Minority. And?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have I? Don't think so.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You fail to take into account cost of living.

No matter how you measure it Central Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta are a hell of a lot poorer than the San Francisco Bay Area. I don't really see the problem with taking money from rich areas to spend on poor areas. But then again, I'm not a hypocrite.

The federal government fails to take into account cost of living. Here in the bay area, the average house is pushing an even $1 million. Something tells me that's cheaper in Central Appalachia. And you really think that money is all going to poor people? If the federal government really helped out poor counties, then Buffalo county, SD would have a life expectancy longer than 50 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? The party in the Majority gets to spend more money on it's incumbents than the party in the Minority. And?
[/quote]
You don't see anything wrong with the Republican party spending lots of money in Republican areas that doesn't help the poor, all while screwing over the Democratic areas? And I'm the hypocrite?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have I? Don't think so.
[/quote]

So do you think that the federal government should take into account cost of living, or should it just have poor people in San Francisco, Boston, and Manhattan subsidize upper middle class people in West Virginia, Mississippi, and North Dakota?

[PBrunsel]

I wouldn't doubt that people from the South are the most charitable, I think they are the most friendly. I went to the great state of Georgia last year, and everyone there would wish you good morning, the fast food operators were always cheerful (unlike here in Iowa ), and the general atmosphere in the South was very much friendly.

I would love to return there again.

[??????????]

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

The money isn't going to poor people fool. If the federal government gave a sh**t about poor people, Buffalo and Shannon counties South Dakota wouldn't be worse off than most 3rd world countries.

Note that the people living there know who would help them. Shannon, SD was Kerry's best county (unless you consider DC a county) in the United States.

[Bono]

Yeah, northerners pay more in taxes and living expenses. Our taxes go to subsidize the ungreatful people in the south.

Federal taxes are the same for all. As for state taxes, it's your fault.
Plus, you're about as northern as me.

[Alcon]

Yeah, northerners pay more in taxes and living expenses. Our taxes go to subsidize the ungreatful people in the south.

Federal taxes are the same for all. As for state taxes, it's your fault.
Plus, you're about as northern as me.

You are Portugese - rather more southern as the latitudes go.

[Bono]

Yeah, northerners pay more in taxes and living expenses. Our taxes go to subsidize the ungreatful people in the south.

Federal taxes are the same for all. As for state taxes, it's your fault.
Plus, you're about as northern as me.

You are Portugese - rather more southern as the latitudes go.

I meant as in reference to US regions. IE, neither of us is.
Though really, Lisbon is at a higher latitude than San Fran.
SF: 37°46' N
Lisbon: 38º42' N

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The federal government fails to take into account cost of living.

And, with a few exceptions, they shouldn't. There is no need to; even in a rich city like San Francisco there are still areas with very low incomes and poverty problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? House prices have NOTHING to do with poverty whatsover. The very fact that house prices in your area are topping $1 million on regular basis indicates pretty damn strongly that it is NOT a poor area; sure like everything in your part of the world the value is certain inflated, but not so much as to obscure a very obvious point that you are blinded by your own selfishness from seeing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, and I never said that it does. I would certainly say that enough does to more than justify it though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say that there was anything right or wrong with it. The majority party gets to spend more money than the minority party. The Democrats did it when they ran things. That's life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No I do not as it does not really effect poor people very much, unless the cost of basic things like food is stupidly high. Even so, it would make more sense for the state governments to deal with that particular problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor people in San Francisco, Boston and Manhatten do not subsidise rich people in West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota, unless the amount of money spent on this sort of redistribution makes up almost all of the federal budget. And it doesn't.
What, in effect, happens with this sort of thing is that money from rich people in the San Francisco Bay area and other rich places, goes to poor areas like Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta. Could you explain what is so very wrong about that?