NATIONAL 2004 Generosity Index 2004

Steve said:

I guess this is that whole "values" thing people are talking about,
huh?

cut and pasted from crampandgoslow:

Quoted message said:

[censored] the South. [censored] 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to
leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part
of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah,
those are states we want to keep.

And now what do we get? We're the [censored] Arrogant Northeast Liberal
Elite? How about this for arrogant: the South is the -Real- America?
The -Authentic- America. Really?

Cause we [censored] founded this country, [censored]. Those
'_Founding_Fathers_'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States)
you keep going on and on about? All that [censored] about what you think
they meant by the Second Amendment giving you the right to keep your
'_assault_weapons_' (http://tinyurl.com/4l8qv) in the glove compartment
because you didn't bother to read the
'_first_half_of_the_fucking_sentence_' (http://tinyurl.com/7x298)? Who
do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting '_revolutionaries_'
(http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm) were? They were
[censored] blue-staters, [censored]. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello?
Think there might be a reason all the [censored] '_monuments_'
(http://www.americanparknetwork.com/parkinfo/sl/history/liberty.html)
are up here in our backyard?

No, No. Get the [censored] out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell
and [censored] Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your -real-
American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who
do you think those [censored] stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for
[censored] blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten
their [censored] Subarus together and broken off from New York a little
earlier. Get it? We started this [censored], so don't get all uppity about
how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for
'_almost_a_hundred_years_'
(http://www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/stinfo2.html)" [censored]. [censored] off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being [censored]
arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe '_horsies_'
(http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0330-03.htm)? I don't think so.
Arrogance is the [censored] cornerstone of what it means to be American.
And I wouldn't be so [censored] arrogant if I wasn't paying for your
[censored] bridges, [censored].

All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all
'_comes_from_us_and_goes_to_you_'
(http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html),
so shut up and enjoy your [censored] '_Tennessee_Valley_Authority_'
(http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/) electricity and your fancy highways that
we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can
come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a
[censored] swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a [censored]," we said, but
you had to have your [censored] orange juice.

The next dickwad who says, "It’s your money, not the government's
money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get
the most federal [censored] dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go
on, guess. That’s right, [censored], they're red states. And eight of
the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It’s too easy,
[censored], they’re blue states. It’s not -your- money, [censored], it’s
[censored] -our- money. What was that Real American Value you were
spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy
your own [censored] stop signs, [censored].

Let’s talk about those values for a [censored] minute. You and your
Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values
over you [censored] Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which
state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping
dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It’s [censored] '_Massachusetts_'
(http://toughenough.org/2004/10/massachusetts-liberal-pride.html), the
[censored] center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that’s right, the
state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom
Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the [censored] nation. Think
that’s just some '_aberration_'
(http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS2.shtml)? How about this:
9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are [censored] blue states, [censored], and
most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are
the highest divorce rates? Care to [censored] guess? 10 of the top 10 are
[censored] red-ass we're-so-[censored]-moral states. And while Nevada is the
worst, the '_Bible_Belt_'
(http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html) is doing its [censored]
part.

But two guys making out is going to [censored] ruin marriage for you?
Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little
[censored]. Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you
do, right? Cause we [censored] get to hear about it every goddamn year at
election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday
morning and sing, and then you're [censored] towers of moral superiority.
Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us [censored] Northerners don't
talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning,
hmmm? Ever think of -that-, you self-righteous [censored]? No, you're too
busy '_erecting_giant_stone_tablets_of_the_Ten_Commandments_'
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2087621/) in buildings paid for by the [censored]
Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the '_highest_murder_rates__'
(http://tinyurl.com/6f4r6)in the nation? It ain't us up here in the
North, [censored].

Well this gravy train is [censored] -over-. Take your liberal-bashing,
federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou,
hypocritical [censored] and shove it up your ass.

And no, you can't have your [censored] convention in New York next time.
[censored] off.

-- crampandgoslow

Steve <[email hidden]> wrote in news:BDC8D783.CD9A0%
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I guess this is that whole "values" thing people are talking about,
huh?

And here I was thinking that "values" was telling other people what they can
and can't do in the privacy of their own home.

I also got the feeling that "values" has something to do with freedom of
religion. That is, you have freedom of religion, as long as your religion
happens to be fundamentalist protestant christianity.

- Boyd S.

Quoted message said:

From: Steve [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

49. Massachusetts (Kerry +25)

Well looks like we moved up a slot. This is one of the things that really [censored]
me off here. There's all this talk about helping people, and preaching, and
lecturing about "you have to help others!". They need to put the hell up or
shut up. This State has a fairly high per capita income and is definitely a
leader in liberal moralising, but when it comes to putting their money where
their mouth is the money goes for a new Volvo or BMW instead. We don't make
[censored] but always manage to donate a fair amount to efficient charities that put
the money on the street and time when we can.
Massachusetts as a whole should be red faced over it's [censored] poor attitude.
Bill C

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: Steve [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

49. Massachusetts (Kerry +25)

Well looks like we moved up a slot. This is one of the things that
really [censored] me off here. There's all this talk about helping people,
and preaching, and lecturing about "you have to help others!". They
need to put the hell up or shut up. This State has a fairly high per
capita income and is definitely a leader in liberal moralising, but
when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is the money
goes for a new Volvo or BMW instead. We don't make [censored] but always
manage to donate a fair amount to efficient charities that put the
money on the street and time when we can. Massachusetts as a whole
should be red faced over it's [censored] poor attitude. Bill C

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/icd-pct.png

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/icd-pct.png

The only thing that I can think of that would make that accurate would be that
the level of each donation was much smaller. This isn't news here and has been
acknowledged to much hand ringing, but apparently little cash for along time.
Bill C

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:03:24 GMT, Steve <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?id=0,488,0,0,1,0

Very interesting and dissapointing for the states in which I have
lived. Sad in fact.

I'd be interested in seeing more details about how charitable is
defined -- there are forms of giving that count as charitable for tax
purposes but are not quite as public serving as other forms. For
example, I know of bike racing clubs that has nonproft status such
that people can donate to them and take a tax deduction, but really
they benefit mainly yuppies who comprise their members. That's not
great. There are sports clubs and churches like that.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/icd-pct.png

The only thing that I can think of that would make that accurate would
be that the level of each donation was much smaller. This isn't news
here and has been acknowledged to much hand ringing, but apparently
little cash for along time. Bill C

Well, if you believed the thing Steve linked to, you should believe this
since that's where I got the data.

If you'd looked at the data, it'd be clearer. It appears that the reason
why the average charitable contribution per donor in your state looks
relatively low is exactly because giving is so nearly universal. You can
see that more clearly if you look at the data stratified by income level.
At each income level, more people in MA make charitable donations than
people in, say, Texas. Put another way, even among households with the
*same* income, a larger proportion of households in Texas give nothing to
charity than households in MA or MD or NY (or UT).

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:09:34 -0800, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/icd-pct.png

The only thing that I can think of that would make that accurate would
be that the level of each donation was much smaller. This isn't news
here and has been acknowledged to much hand ringing, but apparently
little cash for along time. Bill C

Well, if you believed the thing Steve linked to, you should believe this
since that's where I got the data.

If you'd looked at the data, it'd be clearer. It appears that the reason
why the average charitable contribution per donor in your state looks
relatively low is exactly because giving is so nearly universal. You can
see that more clearly if you look at the data stratified by income level.
At each income level, more people in MA make charitable donations than
people in, say, Texas. Put another way, even among households with the
*same* income, a larger proportion of households in Texas give nothing to
charity than households in MA or MD or NY (or UT).

I really need to gain a better understanding of statistics. A lot of
us do. Thanks Robert.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Do you actually believe this stuff? How about this one:

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

I really need to gain a better understanding of statistics. A lot of
us do.

Count me in that group, too.

BTW, here's another way to explain what appears to happening with those
data: in places like MS and AR and OK and LA (the places at the top of
that "generosity" ranking), charitable giving appears to be something that
rich people do, and that's why the average gift is large. In places at the
bottom of that ranking, charitable giving appears to be something that
both rich and middle-income people do, and the average over all gifts is
smaller.

Quoted message said:

I really need to gain a better understanding of statistics. A lot of
us do. Thanks Robert.

JT

Seconded. At least I learn something when I question him on stats.
Bill C

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung"

Quoted message said:

You can
see that more clearly if you look at the data stratified by income level.
At each income level, more people in MA make charitable donations than
people in, say, Texas.

These are only reported donations, on Federal (and state? local?) tax forms.
The political aspects of "reporting" might be interesting too, but for whatever
reasons, this data isn't "total donations given", correct? Also many who donate
usable (i.e., sold in the Thrift Stores) household items, clothing, "whatnot"
to Goodwill and similar don't ask for reciepts in the first place, per my
limited observation.

One blip inre Texas and a few other states is that we don't have a state income
tax, which might lead to fewer returns reporting charitable deductions-- if I
remember that mess correctly, anyhow. Home ownership also helps get you up to a
sufficiently large deductible amount where reporting makes a diff in what you
pay Uncle Sugar, which assumedly is the motivation for going through the
paperwork and reporting what you can. --TP

Robert Chung said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

I really need to gain a better understanding of statistics. A lot of
us do.

Count me in that group, too.

Please continue the explanations...
http://dohiyimir.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/highway_to_the_.html

On 11/23/04 4:09 PM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/icd-pct.png

The only thing that I can think of that would make that accurate would
be that the level of each donation was much smaller. This isn't news
here and has been acknowledged to much hand ringing, but apparently
little cash for along time. Bill C

Well, if you believed the thing Steve linked to, you should believe this
since that's where I got the data.

If you'd looked at the data, it'd be clearer. It appears that the reason
why the average charitable contribution per donor in your state looks
relatively low is exactly because giving is so nearly universal. You can
see that more clearly if you look at the data stratified by income level.
At each income level, more people in MA make charitable donations than
people in, say, Texas. Put another way, even among households with the
*same* income, a larger proportion of households in Texas give nothing to
charity than households in MA or MD or NY (or UT).

On the contrary.............
Yours is "clearer" to your biased opinion. You do not sort the whole info
and give no details! Since the majority just take a standard deduction and
are not trying to just slice their tax responsibility.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/2004_us_notes.p
hp

Technical Notes for 2004 Generosity Index (2002 Data)

The Generosity Index (GI) was conceived in 1997 as a concise way to
summarize Massachusetts' and New England's greatest problem in philanthropy:
that we have the nation's largest gap between our ranks in income and our
ranks in charitable giving. The Generosity Index, with its "catchy" name,
publicizes that fact and provides a way to monitor progress against the
problem. We arrive at it by ranking each state's Average Adjusted Gross
Income (AAGI) and Average Itemized Charitable Contribution (AICD or AICC),
then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single plus or
minus number for each state indicating the favorable or unfavorable gap
separating the ranks, and then ranking those numbers.

1. Average Adjusted Gross Income (AAGI): The average adjusted gross
income of all taxpayers for a particular state

2. Having Rank: a ranking of the Average Adjusted Gross Income

3. Percent of Returns with Itemized Charitable Deductions (ICDs):
the percentage of taxpayers itemizing charitable deductions (call them
"donors" for conciseness). This is the aggregate data from the Internal
Revenue Service on taxpayers who itemize and take a charitable deduction for
their contributions.

**********This information however, covers less than 30 percent of all US
taxpayers, as over 70 percent take a standard deduction and do not itemize.
Although the proportion of itemizing taxpayers is relatively small, their
charitable deductions do represent about 60 percent of the total estimated
charitable con

On 11/23/04 4:09 PM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/icd-pct.png

The only thing that I can think of that would make that accurate would
be that the level of each donation was much smaller. This isn't news
here and has been acknowledged to much hand ringing, but apparently
little cash for along time. Bill C

Well, if you believed the thing Steve linked to, you should believe this
since that's where I got the data.

If you'd looked at the data, it'd be clearer. It appears that the reason
why the average charitable contribution per donor in your state looks
relatively low is exactly because giving is so nearly universal. You can
see that more clearly if you look at the data stratified by income level.
At each income level, more people in MA make charitable donations than
people in, say, Texas. Put another way, even among households with the
*same* income, a larger proportion of households in Texas give nothing to
charity than households in MA or MD or NY (or UT).

Download the excel file! Sort the info and see for yourself..

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/2004_Generosity
_Index.xls

On 11/23/04 4:53 PM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

I really need to gain a better understanding of statistics. A lot of
us do.

Count me in that group, too.

BTW, here's another way to explain what appears to happening with those
data: in places like MS and AR and OK and LA (the places at the top of
that "generosity" ranking), charitable giving appears to be something that
rich people do, and that's why the average gift is large. In places at the
bottom of that ranking, charitable giving appears to be something that
both rich and middle-income people do, and the average over all gifts is
smaller.

You have NO reason for that fuzzy logic.......... That theory does not match
these numbers!!

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/2004_Generosity
_Index.xls

Quoted message said:

From: Steve [email hidden]
Date: 11/23/2004 8:55 PM Eastern

Quoted message said:

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/2004_Generosity
_Index.xls

It doesn't make ma. last, but it's still not good given the level of hype here.
maybe it's about time that the Democrats remember what they claim are their
roots; The blue collar working man and actually talk to him again instead of
[censored] on him. (feel free to inset her for him anywhere your PC heart
wishes)
Bill C

Steve said:

On 11/15/04 8:49 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Weisse Luft"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?id=0,488,0,0,1,0
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

Red and Blue in Charity Too
David_Benzion
News reports today are filled with results from the latest "Generosity
Index", an annual survey created by the Catalogue of Philanthropy that
measures what people in a particular state give to charity in relation
to what they have to give.

The index is created by averaging the adjusted income of a state's
residents and comparing that to the value of itemized charitable
donations reported on their tax returns for the latest year available
(in this case, 2002).

Looking at the full results, I think I noticed a pattern-- see if you
can pick up on it (I'll give you little hints in parenthesis):

The "Most Charitable" States:

1. Mississippi (Bush +20)
2. Arkansas (Bush +9)
3. Oklahoma (Bush +32)
4. Louisiana (Bush +15)

The "Least Charitable" States:

47. New Jersey (Kerry +7)
48. Rhode Island (Kerry +21)
49. Massachusetts (Kerry +25)
50. New Hampshire (Kerry +1)

My circumstances today don't permit a deeper analysis, but to the naked
eye the pattern seems to hold throughout much of the remaining index--
states that went for Bush are more likely to be near the top of the
charitable list, while those that went for Kerry more likely to be near
the bottom.

I guess this is that whole "values" thing people are talking about,
huh?

Everyone knows that the blue states have so many social programs and people on welfare that they don't need to give to charities, right?

Kidding.

C'mon people - the last thread was supposed to be the last political thread. It's over, we have to live with 4 more retarded years. Can we get back to talking about bike racing - like how hot is Ryan Trebon or what?

And what about that Knapp chick - total hottitude.

And what about the Krispy Kremes? Seems to me that last year about this time we had a lively discussion going on about doughnuts. I miss those days...

Robert Chung said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

I really need to gain a better understanding of statistics. A lot of
us do.

Count me in that group, too.

Once in a while you say something really funny. This was one of those times.