Study finds Republicans more charitable

Discussion in 'Politics' started by drmarkan, Nov 17, 2006.

  1. This study is just the tip of the iceberg for the hypocracy of the liberals!

    The administrative costs of providing help to the needy through taxation and government programs run in the mid to high 80%s.
    That is 80% to the bureaucrats and 20% to the needy. In one welfare program I am familiar with $15,500 per needy family went into the program but each family only received $3,500 because the bureaucrats retained $12,000 for themselves.

    The same help provided by charities is about the reverse. 20% administrative cost and 80% actually gets to the needy. One charity I know of actually only needs 3% and the rest goes to the recpients.
    #51     Nov 18, 2006
  2. If Pelosi, Rangel and Co. have their way, we will have much in common with the situation in Australia as you have described it.

    We're there already in that many of the poor are utterly ungrateful and demand more.
    #52     Nov 18, 2006
  3. What do you RepuliKKKlans think about the skew in the voter poll surveys? I'm sure you do believe in surveys right?

    Friday 17 November 2006
    Results skewed nationwide in favor of Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes.

    A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in US House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization.

    These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment.

    "We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape," said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, "so 'the fix' turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances." Explained Simon, "When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure--of provoking investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7.
    #53     Nov 18, 2006
  4. I'm not sure about any RepubliKKKLans, but speaking for myself I'd say you're full of shit - again.

    Good grief, the Dems win and thus utterly discredit you moonbats with your "Diebold-is-rigging-the-elections" theory, so now you leap onto the next moonbat theory du jour.

    Get a freakin' life, you're pathetic...
    #54     Nov 18, 2006

  5. Republikklan Mooon - Bat'ooh, Ching choong kung pao to you too. ROTFLMAO!! :D
    #55     Nov 18, 2006
  6. I think most people would agree with this....

    However, how in the world do WE make that happen??

    There's the problem, eh?
    #56     Nov 19, 2006
  7. I don't know how anyone can be as ignorant as you. Once the author has been told about party affiliation by the person he is surveying, he can then go and look into whether donations are made or not. The Red Cross doesn't ask your party affiliation, but when the author gets the releases from the people he is surveying, he can then go to the Red Cross to confirm that the person actually gave blood. They can show him their tax returns with their deductions for charitable donations. They even keep records of who volunteers at homeless shelters and the like, because they like to call these people back to volunteer again.

    Good job though. I'm sure there were some people on here that actually buy into your crap.
    #57     Nov 22, 2006
  8. jem


    you can not take this article seriously.

    I read a few paragraphs and scanned the rest. Not once did they suggest that perhaps democrats are overrepresented in the polling data outside the election booths.

    You realize republicans have jobs and kids to stop them from answering pollsters.
    #58     Nov 22, 2006
  9. So people are going to show this guy their tax returns, tell him it is okay to check out if they gave blood by signing a release form...and this is a statistically random sample...


    #59     Nov 22, 2006

  10. You don't get out enough.

    Yea, charities survey. If I'm PETA I know I'm attracting a different demographic than BoysTown. So I randomly sample contributors. When I know that my "base" is married women 45-70, income level x and most importantly those who ALSO would most likely give to Operation Rescue and to a Demo candidate I will then fund raise based on the appropriate criteria. For a guy who's so into yesterdays technology, stuff that's been around for a decade or so seems to baffle you.
    #60     Nov 22, 2006