Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

Regardless if there are varifiable statistics, it would likely show that conservatives are richer than liberals and therefore give more money to charity as tax relief. It would make more sense to give lower income tax payers a 100% deduction for charitable contributions. This effort to fund charitable organizations is another effort to use tax funds to prove that the an administration is compassionate. As I said on another thread, there's a contradiction in there somewhere...

Light:

Charitable giving is tax deductable on the Federal return , but in Massachusetts, the State return no long allows charitable giving to be tax deductable.

I don't believe there's ever been a chartible deduction on the California tax return either. The Federal deduction is based on a formula of income calculated as a percentage with the amount one contributes. A better course could be to make those contributions 100% deductible. Churches and organizations directly connected to a religious organization already have programs in place to help
the needy. I donate clothing, furniture and a lot of other stuff to one of them to help the poor. I prefer that to garage sales. So, what exactly is the government funding? A new adminstrative nightmare?

LW, We live and California, and we've always been able to deduct our charitable deductions. I believe there's a max allowable deduction on the federal return, but I think it's a carry-over to subsequent years. c.i.

trespassers will- Excellent analysis. I would love to find a website where we can determine the charitable giving by various politicians. I think that would prove very interesting!

I did remember just after I posted that, ci, that there is a deduction on the California return. I guess we are amongst the states who are compassionate and I believe this is better way to get money to charties -- you can't donate clothing to the Federal government to distribute!

LW - Politicians are required to account for their income and expenditures and this information is compiled by the government. I have seen this publicized enough to assume it was common knowledge, but am having no luck finding a good citation amidst all the garbage Google is giving me back.

So let's just assume I'm wrong on that point and let the rest of my comments stand without it.

So this off-the-top-of-your-head, rash statement has no basis in fact -- that's interesting since it has a lot to do with the "point" you are making. It knocks it into a crocked hat.

LW - If you believe everything I wrote hinged on this one comment, then I encourage you to not respond to the rest of my comments.

BTW, I find it interesting how you receive someone simply acknowledging that he can't support a comment he made. I thought my response was appropriate, honest, and reasonable. It would seem that doesn't mean much to you.

You'll find on this site that any wild, unsubstantiated, uncooberated statement can damage your credulity. I suggest you continue to post opinions but if you want to back them up, you'd better be ready to cite your sources. Other than the many radical, lunatic fringe so-called concrete sources like NewsPox.

On this note, I would say that on Al Gore's return of I believe four years ago, he showed an alarmingly low deduction for charitable contributions. Although this doesn't mean all Democrats or Liberals do not donate a lot of money to charities, that and his unfortunate performance at the debates lowered my estimation of his sincerity by several notches. Well, consider his religious persuasion and you might have some of the answers but I can only hold that against him for what his actions might have been in office.

LW, Not only that, but Albore went to a charitable organization called the Buddhist Church and got a huge donation from them. That's what I call hootspah(sp)! c.i.

That is suspicious even through there wasn't the evidence to proceed, only enough for innuendo which has been taken advantage of ad nauseum. Yet, the fact that he make very little in charitable contributions got a pass. Not enough buzz to that, I guess, since it might bring scrutiny on all those conservatives who didn't contribute much to charity. Is it any wonder?

No wonder. They've been stealing it from their employees and investors for their personal charity. So what else is new? ;( c.i.

Yea, turns out Bill Watzisname who ran for California governor had a charity allright -- it was an anti-abortion entity.

I believe the word you were looking for is credibility. "Credulity" is a very different thing. :wink:

And I actually came across numerous sources of the Al Gore issue you mentioned, however that merely compared his giving at that time with Dick Cheney's, and the sites I found were partisan sources I would not offer here as "proof" or "evidence" of something factual. Suffice to say that I repeated something I've heard often enough that I assumed it would be quite easy to support with a citation, but found no citation to back it up.

And for what it's worth, feel free to set whatever standards you choose for others, but I expect people to make mistakes, as I did here, and don't judge them harshly simply for doing so. What means something to me is what people do when they see they have erred. That's where you learn a lot about someone.

credulity - a disposition to believe too readily, but if you want to also include credibility...

I wouldn't want to judge you as an individual based on one statement that was a mistaken generality so, of course, you have a pass on that one. I used credulity as I think you had picked up on a few of those generalities and Al Gore's case certainly was an isolated example. I didn't use credibility as I was incredulous after readying the statement, I didn't want to slight you on being credible -- that is, unless this was going to be a habit. At any rate, I think it's one of those misunderstandings that occur on these forums so I offer a handshake and I'll return to my corner of the ring for some water and someone to wipe the sweat off my forehead.

You can always state opinions, trespasser, with or without a chain of logic to support them.

Oh, I see the sentence construction wasn't exactly according to Hoyle! Shame on me, and an English minor, too. I've written too many essays and gone back over them so many times -- it is difficult to bang these comments out without making grammatical errors. Let's just all read the guide for the political forum and try not to make unqualified statements without citing substatiated sources -- far more important than grammar or spelling (although I wish more members would take the time to use the spellcheck!)

That conservatives supposedly give more to charities than liberals is not an opinion -- it's a groundless accusation.

LW, I don't understand what the big deal is. Who cares whether liberals or conservatives give more in charitable contributions. I don't criticize or applaud anybody that gives to charity. Everybody has their own reasons for giving to charity. The only important fact that I know of is that Americans are the most charitable, and that's good enough for me! We not only give to needy people at home, but also in many other countries - and not only $$$$. When a disaster strikes anywhere in the world, the Americans are the first to respond. c.i.