Stu Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 The following data on giving is provided by the Catalogue of Philanthropy which is an organization that promotes charity. It provides a ranking of the most charitable states based upon what is given vs. what is earned (measures sacrifice). http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004&orderby=giving_rank Just for conversation purposes, I added the column of which candidate the state supported in the election. So while all of us "red state" types may be dumb, brainwashed, etc it does seem as though we are generous with what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1966 Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Thats because lefties think the government should be the vehicle for wealth redistribution; that sort of makes charities moot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 But I thought the lefties were the caring, tolerant voice of reason to counter those mean old conservatives who don't care about the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1966 Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by pr11fan But I thought the lefties were the caring, tolerant voice of reason to counter those mean old conservatives who don't care about the poor. Lefties want the government to do it, with people on the rights money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Embarrassing for the blue states if it's a fair measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Defense Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 its all in the definition of what charitable giving is. weren't the swift boat veterans for truth a nonprofit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 11, 2004 Author Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Embarrassing for the blue states if it's a fair measure. I agree there are always other factors. But I do find it interesting that the top "having" states were for Senator Kerry. Goes against the conventional wisdom a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I would guess this has everything to do with churches. One of the strongest predictors for voting Bush is regularly attending church and that is where a lot of charitable contributions go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Did anyone even bother looking at the Excel spreadsheet available on the website? Mississippi, number 1 in this so called Generosity Index had one of the lowest Percentage of tax returns with ICOs (Itemized Charitable Contributions). This means a small number of (possibly rich?) people contributed more. Look at it the other way; 6 out of the top 7 states with the highest Percentage of tax returns with ICOs voted for Kerry. Does that mean states that voted blue are better? No, of course not. Isn't anyone else sick and tired of this Red vs Blue crap? Because that's what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by Canyonero! Did anyone even bother looking at the Excel spreadsheet available on the website? Mississippi, number 1 in this so called Generosity Index had one of the lowest Percentage of tax returns with ICOs (Itemized Charitable Contributions). This means a small number of (possibly rich?) people contributed more. Look at it the other way; 6 out of the top 7 states with the highest Percentage of tax returns with ICOs voted for Kerry. Does that mean states that voted blue are better? No, of course not. Isn't anyone else sick and tired of this Red vs Blue crap? Because that's what is. "Yada,yada chew. Breakdown, chew. Blah,blah, spit. ICO snort, blibur,blabber, contribution. Look at it spit, chewey chomp. Sick and yada Reda & Blue crap snort." No, I am not tired of Red & Blue comparisons. It gives us a chance to see how hypocrytical liberals are. Are you? Chew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Fine, the blue states are smarter and the red states are more charitable. I mean, you can't use polls that only support your "side." It's all nonsense, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by Hooper Fine, the blue states are smarter and the red states are more charitable. I mean, you can't use polls that only support your "side." It's all nonsense, guys. Dude it is not a poll, it is facts. Something liberals know little about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by portisizzle "Yada,yada chew. Breakdown, chew. Blah,blah, spit. ICO snort, blibur,blabber, contribution. Look at it spit, chewey chomp. Sick and yada Reda & Blue crap snort." No, I am not tired of Red & Blue comparisons. It gives us a chance to see how hypocrytical liberals are. Are you? Chew Hypocritical in what way? I'm a liberal; I live in a state that voted for John Kerry. I'm not sitting around talking about the "dumb south" or anything like that. Am I upset the guy I voted for lost? Of course. I'm not going to blame a group that voted for someone they felt would do a better job. Don't talk about hypocrites if you're going to define things so narrowly. People are going to look at whatever they want and make the numbers mean whatever they want. What's the point of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 11, 2004 Author Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by Canyonero! Hypocritical in what way? I'm a liberal; I live in a state that voted for John Kerry. I'm not sitting around talking about the "dumb south" or anything like that. Am I upset the guy I voted for lost? Of course. I'm not going to blame a group that voted for someone they felt would do a better job. Don't talk about hypocrites if you're going to define things so narrowly. People are going to look at whatever they want and make the numbers mean whatever they want. What's the point of this? While you may not spout the "dumb south" rhetoric there are plenty that do. That is the point and it starts to look different when the shoe is on the other foot. Hooper seems to see the point in that things like this go both ways. So as "red state" kind of guy I am stupid but as a "blue state" guy you are a cold hearted uncompassionate ****. Or maybe such generalizations are are a little too broadbrushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by Canyonero! Hypocritical in what way? I'm a liberal; I live in a state that voted for John Kerry. I'm not sitting around talking about the "dumb south" or anything like that. Am I upset the guy I voted for lost? Of course. I'm not going to blame a group that voted for someone they felt would do a better job. Don't talk about hypocrites if you're going to define things so narrowly. People are going to look at whatever they want and make the numbers mean whatever they want. What's the point of this? Hypocrytical because you chose to diminish the factual information as conservative rhetoric. In light of the information provided you chose to say that the information as presented could mean almost anything. Well, you are wrong. And your original point was worded in such a pathetic, whining manner that it required an equally pathetic response. Next time you choose to attack facts, why not try something innovative from a liberal, use facts (and not spin) to defend your position. You will be better informed, plus you might just see that the facts are irrefutable. In which case you might just end up supporting a conservative position. Oh, my......Mr. Hypocrit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 "It is facts." Hmm. Maybe all those studies saying the blue states were the more educated states were on to something after all. Give me a break -- these studies are all nonsense. This whole red-state/blue-state stuff is nonsense. Dubya won, okay? I didn't vote for the guy but I hope he does a great job. I'm an American -- not a "blue-stater." It's time to move forward -- not to whine about losing or kick the loser while he's down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by Hooper "It is facts." :laugh: :laugh: Thanks for the grammer lesson Captain Kangaroo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Stop, you're all hurting my ears. I didn't even know that was possible on a message board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 You can use statistics to prove anything. 40 percent of all people know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Originally posted by portisizzle :laugh: :laugh: Thanks for the grammer lesson Captain Kangaroo. It is spelled "grammar" you "blue-stater" Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Based on what he said, I have to agree Hooper that the IQ map presented earlier on this board is based on factual studies. Brilliant researchers must have gotten together and determined the average IQ of everyone living in each state. The data has to be true because it was published in more than one publication and published on the Web. So, if the data is accurate than Bush’s voting base just isn’t very smart. So, if the IQ map is accurate, than portisizzle you must not have a high IQ because you voted for Bush. Just following the facts of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Not to mention, this entire thread is based on a misunderstanding of said "facts". Because while the red states might dominate the charts in charity, they're doing it with the blue states' tax money. That's a "fact" also. You can look that one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 Originally posted by JimboDaMan Not to mention, this entire thread is based on a misunderstanding of said "facts". Because while the red states might dominate the charts in charity, they're doing it with the blue states' tax money. That's a "fact" also. You can look that one up. Please explain said fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Originally posted by Stu Please explain said fact. Sigh. You really could look it up. Federal Money Rec'd Per $1 in Taxes Paid (2003 Data) Top 10 Feeders: 1. New Mexico $1.99 2. Alaska $1.89 3. Mississippi $1.83 4. West Virginia $1.82 5. North Dakota $1.75 6. Alabama $1.69 7. Montana $1.60 8. Virginia $1.58 9. Hawaii $1.58 10. Kentucky $1.52 Top 10 Payers: 1. New Jersey $0.57 2. New Hampshire $0.64 3. Connecticut $0.65 4. Minnesota $0.70 5. Nevada $0.70 6. Illinois $0.73 7. Massachusetts $0.78 8. California $0.78 9. New York $0.80 10. Colorado $0.80 In other words, for every $1 in federal taxes paid, New Mexico got back $1.99 while New Jersey got back only $0.57 I detect a trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 Originally posted by JimboDaMan Sigh. You really could look it up. You brought it to the table not me. How people earn their income doesn't mitigate their proclivity to donate it. But as I have said, the point of posting this was really to demonstrate the silliness of the red vs blue comparison in which "statistics" both real and imagined can be used to prove almost anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.