Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right

Cute. Giving to churches should not count because some churches " may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted." Let's see here. United way is typically about 70% efficient so maybe they should only count at 70%. And then they also give to support abortions. Now that rally sounds like a deserving charity. And all of that aid for Haiti - yet many of them managed to give nothing to Haiti. And then there is the Salvation Army with something like a 98% giving. OOPS! They are religious, aren't they.

I guess that is what happens when you selectively pick a point. You can show anything you like

 

RLM, you'll never convince them of the truth that conservatives are compassionate and caring. Since they are such elitist, hate-filled prigs they have trouble believing that anyone could be otherwise.

 

You never know unless you try.

 

That's because we see your actions instead of listening to your Bullshit.

 

You're talking out of your ass again, Moron Joe. Don't you EVER have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation?

 

Not really. That is because we see how you are so interested in seeing how much of someone else's money the government can give to buy someone's vote.

 

As usual, your reading comprehension skills involve focusing in on one sentence, taking it out of context, and then putting your own bizarre spin on it. And of course, everything comes down to abortions.

 

Oh right, right...I forgot the takers and makers rhetoric you idiots cling to. Do you know that YOU are part of the 47% of takers? By Romney's definition, you are a taker. So is little Davy. If you live in a red state, you are taking from the rest of us. If you're on Medicare, you are a taker. So it really does come down to ignoring what you say and paying attention to what you do.

 

Filthy takers!

Oklahoma hates big government but loves the money

By JANET PEARSON Associate Editor on Aug 19, 2012, at 2:22 AM Updated on 8/19/12 at 4:23 AM


Janet Pearson

Pointing fingers won't solve uninsured problem

Oklahoma leaders managed to pass a few major measures this past session, but this political season might be more noteworthy for what wasn't accomplished: addressing the problem of the uninsured.
Natural disasters raising new questions

It's impossible to place a value on the lives lost in last week's tornadoes, or on any of the lives lost in the increasingly common natural disasters that hit the U.S. year in and year out.

Janet Pearson

Why is the Washington Post so interested in Oklahoma political leanings? It's not like the state's conservative bent against big government is front-page news. And surely there are other conservative states that aren't so fond of the feds.

Maybe it's because someone there at the Post delights in pointing out what big hypocrites we are.

I'm guessing most Oklahomans don't much care what the Washington Post writes about us. But sometimes, it's eye-opening to look at ourselves through someone else's eyes.

The latest installment in the Post's Oklahoma series, "Health insurance mandate faces huge resistance in Oklahoma," was published on July 29.

The article pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision upholding most of the Affordable Care Act doesn't necessarily mean Americans will sign up for health insurance in droves. "Nowhere is that more evident than Oklahoma, a conservative state with an independent streak and a disdain for the strong arm of the government.

"The state cannot even get residents to comply with car insurance laws; roughly a quarter of the drivers here lack it, one of the highest rates in the country."

The writer noted that "antipathy" toward federal reform "runs so deep" here that Gov. Mary Fallin even turned away $54 million to implement one facet of the reform law that would help residents obtain health insurance.

So does our resistance to auto insurance mean the same thing will happen with health insurance? Maybe. After all, we don't like the feds telling us what to do, even if it's in our best interests.

It's what we do

But while Oklahomans may harbor a fierce dislike for all things federal, we don't seem to mind pocketing the money the feds send our way. As a letter to the editor of the Post noted a few days later, on the same day the above article was published, "there was an article stating that the House was ready to take up drought-relief legislation; in other words, more bloated farm subsidies. And who is pushing this legislation? An Oklahoma Republican (Rep. Frank D. Lucas). Am I the only one to see the hypocrisy here?"

Drought relief is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the federal help Oklahomans have sought and received over the years. In last Tuesday's Tulsa World, it was reported that Gov. Mary Fallin is seeking federal disaster relief for the hundreds of Oklahoma homeowners and businesses affected by the recent wildfires. On the same page of that edition, a report noted that more than 705,000 Oklahomans - one out of every five residents - was on Social Security in 2010, and that nearly 800,000 Oklahomans received Medicaid benefits in 2009.

That article also reported that more than 585,000 Oklahomans received Medicare benefits in 2009. The two programs combined accounted for about 41 percent of all health-care spending in the state.

There's more

That's not all the federal largesse making its way here, as the Post's astute observers found. In an article it published last year on April 10 about the frantic budget process aimed at averting a possible government shutdown, the Post again traveled to Oklahoma for insight, and found that a "jaundiced view of the federal government is common here ... even though the region's surging economy is built to a large degree on a foundation of federal spending."

The article went on to note that in the Oklahoma City area, 7 percent of the work force are federal employees, "more than double the U.S. average."

"Meanwhile, federal spending on roads, a huge Federal Aviation Administration center and a sprawling Air Force base not only keeps more than 20,000 civilians employed but also is helping to nurture entire sectors of the area's increasingly prosperous and diverse economy."

The Post said the state "gets back $1.35 for every dollar its residents and businesses pay in federal taxes," citing Tax Foundation figures. "That's the 15th most generous return among the 50 states."

While several officials quoted in the story struggled to defend Oklahoma's apparent hypocrisy regarding federal spending, one was surprisingly candid. "On one hand, you have this fairly heavy concentration of federal employees and spending here," said Cindy Rosenthal, a University of Oklahoma political scientist and mayor of Norman. "On the other hand, there is a lot of sentiment that the federal government is too large, too intrusive and probably too wasteful."

The area's congressman, Rep. James Lankford, came up with this creative rationale. Some federal workers, he told the Post, have complained to him about the "inefficiency they see up close and personal." (I'm guessing the inefficiency they cited was in no way connected to their own bailiwicks.)

It wasn't lost on the Post that the area's economic success "is due in no small part to its location as a crossroads for three major interstate highways, which were built with federal money. ... And the state's booming energy sector as well as many of its farmers benefit mightily from federal subsidies."

Splitting hairs

Don't you just hate it when the liberal media are right?

Chances are most Oklahomans don't share that thought but instead feel it's perfectly justifiable to accept certain federal funds while viewing other spending as not justifiable. That's not an outrageous stance; obviously some expenditures are more defensible than others. But can't everyone make the same argument?

And then we also try to have it both ways. Oklahoma's conservative leadership acquiesced to accepting federal stimulus funds, after vociferously opposing the idea (and even voting against it in some instances), because the money was used on needed highway infrastructure they felt was an appropriate use of federal funds.

And just about everybody, including our leadership, seems OK with 800,000 Oklahomans currently receiving Medicaid services. But for some reason the governor and many others are reluctant to add more Oklahomans to the Medicaid rolls, as called for in the federal health-care reform law. Surely that's not just because it's President Obama's idea. Right?

Our flimsy rationales and policy hair-splitting may satisfy us when it comes to federal spending, but we're not fooling anyone else.

 

Would this one be better?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

​

Point being that these educated liberals want the rest of us to live to their standards in stead of the public laws. And despite your articles meme, it presents no data that religious donations are any worse/better/different than any other recognized donations.​

 

Two schools of thought:

Help those in need by paying more in taxes, and sacrifice some of your earnings.

Don't help those in need by paying less taxes, and pocket the money for yourself.

Empathy and self sacrifice versus Greed and selfishness.

I'm hoping empathy wins out, but I'm not holding my breath.

Of course, you can say poor people don't pay much in taxes, and it's true as they are the beneficiaries of charities and need the help, but don't forget the ultra wealthy and their ability to take advantage of laws created to protect their vast wealth. See: Mitt Romney.

 

Boy, did you miss the boat. Your first boat may be accurate, but how does this fit your second?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...show-7-million-in-donations-over-2-years.html
And, just to add fuel to the fire;

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1#.UbeMu5z4Ik8
CAN YOU AFFORD IT, JOE?

http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15#ixzz2VwWOow4P​

 

Are there any arguments coming out of Oklahoma that aren't ignorant one liners without basis? Oh, I suppose I might as well face it...I'm an elitist because I can think and convey thoughtful responses instead of resorting to names that I can't even define, and because I choose educated debate over slush. Excuse me while I change into my smoking jacket and pour myself a 100 year old Scotch.

 

Filthy Oklahoma takers!

 

I guess you two don't like the topic of donations, huh?

 

No, my elitism gets in the way. Now if you'll pardon me, I'm on the phone with my Wall Street people.

 

Nice cherry picking. But I believe that it was Aldous Huxley that said, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." You completely ignored the fact non-religious people do not donate to churches while they may or may not give to other organizations that do charity work but are not tax deductible. The IRS measure of "charity" is skewed towards religious giving and therefore an inaccurate measure of the very characteristic the study is trying to measure. This you do not have the intellect to figure out on your own nor do I have the patience to teach you.

 

OMG! Really! "You completely ignored the fact non-religious people do not donate to churches". Well, doh. You have completely ignore the simple fact that churches really are charities even though you don't like them. Just like I don't like United Way. What would happen to those donations if United way were removed?

 

Churches push their religion first and foremost. They do charity work but they do charity work in order to add to their flock. And you have to admit that churches have become far more political (Think of Evangelicals, think of Mormons, think of the Westboro Baptists). These are all highly political players even though they are religions and have tax exempt status. That doesn't change the fact that the donations people make to these organizations are charitable but simply looking at IRS records doesn't take into account whether the people themselves are giving purely because they are naturally more giving people or whether they are just pushing their own political views. The IRS data is simply too crude of a measure to make that distinction and is far too skewed towards religious organizations to be able to accurately predict anything. Like I said, I know research is beyond your understanding but the fact is that this study was picked apart years ago as fluff.

 

Bravo!

Criticism and scandals[edit]

• William Aramony, CEO of the national organization for over 20 years, retired in 1992 amid allegations of fraud and financial mismanagement, for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison.[9]

• Ralph Dickerson Jr., a former CEO of United Way of New York City, was found to have used United Way funds for personal expenses during 2002 and 2003. He later returned the money.[10]

• Oral Suer, CEO of the Washington, D.C. chapter, was convicted of misuse of donations in 2004.[11][12] Norman O. Taylor, Oral Suer's replacement, was never charged with misconduct but was forced to resign.[13]

• In 2008, 5% of local United Way groups donated $1.9 million to Planned Parenthood, which provides a variety of family planning services, including abortions. Although United Way does not take a position on abortion and says the money does not go toward funding abortion services,[14] critics contend that the donations free up resources for abortions and thus indirectly fund abortion.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Way_of_America