Bleeding Heart Tightwads

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Didn't Obama have the highest percentage of private donations less than $100 in history? And he had a HUGE warchest

Wrong

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004

Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama's funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less (see Table 3), only 26% of his money through August 31 (and 24% of his funds through October 15, according to the most recent FEC reports) came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less. Obama's 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Dean in 2004.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I Googled, looking for a study showing how much churches, on average, spend on charity and other things.

How Churches Spend Money
John C. LaRue, Jr.

After completing the long process of preparing an annual church budget, you may wonder how your congregation compares to others. Here's one way. YOUR CHURCH has just completed a major study on church budgets, including such topics as indebtedness, insurance, property values, and pastor salaries. This report, based on that study, is the first of a series on churches and money.

According to the study, staff compensation accounts for more than 40 percent of an average church's budget. Large churches with annual budgets of more than $500,000 appropriate an average of 40 percent of their budget to staff pay. This is slightly less than the typical 46 percent that's allocated by smaller churches with annual budgets of less than $500,000.

Building Costs

Keeping a church facility going grabs the second largest piece of the budget pie; about $2 of every $10. Churches, large and small, dedicate about the same percentage of their budgets to paying off, maintaining, and protecting their property.

Link

It appears running a church exhausts about 60% of an average church's budget, leaving only 40% for charity, but who knows how much of that is actually spent on charitable efforts? Certainly lends credence to the argument that meeting in a grassy field instead of an ostentatious edifice would go a long way towards sending more of the church's money to places where it does the most good.

Another study by the same site, looked at nearly 1,200 churches and how they spend their money. This gets really interesting.

Our Study

Those figures are high compared to what we learned from the study YOUR CHURCH recently completed on churches and their budgets. A total of 1,184 surveys were mailed, with a response rate of 23 percent. A more detailed analysis of those findings will be presented in a series of Special Reports, beginning in this issue ("How Churches Spend Money"). But, briefly, the study shows that the average-size budget of the churches surveyed is $292,790. Here's how the pie is divided:

43 percent for staff compensation
20 percent for facilities (rent, mortgage, utilities, upkeep)
16 percent for missions
9 percent for church programs
6 percent for administration and supplies
3 percent for denominational fees
3 percent other.

Link

I'd say that 16% for "missions" is where the church is spending money that benefits those who need it most. You might argue that the 9% for church programs might help people too, depending on what programs they're referring to.

But at best, you have 16%-25% of an average church's budget going towards helping people. And you have to wonder how many of their "missions" are truthfully just evangelical missions to proselytize and not truly charitable missions where they're helping the less fortunate.

Kinda pathetic if you ask me. It appears something on the order of 75%+ of a church's budget goes to simply maintaining the church itself. Frankly, that money isn't helping anyone, except the people who mistakenly worship the building itself and not their god.

Those numbers sound about right. About 60% of the donations go towards maintaining the church the rest off to charity in some shape or form.

of course it would also be a false assumption to assume that church members give only to thier church.

It would also be a false assumption to assume that all church members are conservatives.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I Googled, looking for a study showing how much churches, on average, spend on charity and other things.

How Churches Spend Money
John C. LaRue, Jr.

After completing the long process of preparing an annual church budget, you may wonder how your congregation compares to others. Here's one way. YOUR CHURCH has just completed a major study on church budgets, including such topics as indebtedness, insurance, property values, and pastor salaries. This report, based on that study, is the first of a series on churches and money.

According to the study, staff compensation accounts for more than 40 percent of an average church's budget. Large churches with annual budgets of more than $500,000 appropriate an average of 40 percent of their budget to staff pay. This is slightly less than the typical 46 percent that's allocated by smaller churches with annual budgets of less than $500,000.

Building Costs

Keeping a church facility going grabs the second largest piece of the budget pie; about $2 of every $10. Churches, large and small, dedicate about the same percentage of their budgets to paying off, maintaining, and protecting their property.

Link

It appears running a church exhausts about 60% of an average church's budget, leaving only 40% for charity, but who knows how much of that is actually spent on charitable efforts? Certainly lends credence to the argument that meeting in a grassy field instead of an ostentatious edifice would go a long way towards sending more of the church's money to places where it does the most good.

Another study by the same site, looked at nearly 1,200 churches and how they spend their money. This gets really interesting.

Our Study

Those figures are high compared to what we learned from the study YOUR CHURCH recently completed on churches and their budgets. A total of 1,184 surveys were mailed, with a response rate of 23 percent. A more detailed analysis of those findings will be presented in a series of Special Reports, beginning in this issue ("How Churches Spend Money"). But, briefly, the study shows that the average-size budget of the churches surveyed is $292,790. Here's how the pie is divided:

43 percent for staff compensation
20 percent for facilities (rent, mortgage, utilities, upkeep)
16 percent for missions
9 percent for church programs
6 percent for administration and supplies
3 percent for denominational fees
3 percent other.

Link

I'd say that 16% for "missions" is where the church is spending money that benefits those who need it most. You might argue that the 9% for church programs might help people too, depending on what programs they're referring to.

But at best, you have 16%-25% of an average church's budget going towards helping people. And you have to wonder how many of their "missions" are truthfully just evangelical missions to proselytize and not truly charitable missions where they're helping the less fortunate.

Kinda pathetic if you ask me. It appears something on the order of 75%+ of a church's budget goes to simply maintaining the church itself. Frankly, that money isn't helping anyone, except the people who mistakenly worship the building itself and not their god.

Those numbers sound about right. About 60% of the donations go towards maintaining the church the rest off to charity in some shape or form.

of course it would also be a false assumption to assume that church members give only to thier church.

It would also be a false assumption to assume that all church members are conservatives.

True, only the members that give would be the conservatives
Just jerking your chain...Merry Christmas

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel49

of course it would also be a false assumption to assume that church members give only to thier church.

Usu8ally that's the best venue to make sure that they donations reach those it's intended to do. My Mother's church does a lot of great work for those in need. If they weren't so God Damned Preachy I'd probably participate but every time it's JESUS!!! this or Jesus!!!! that. Fuck, who needs that kind of agravation?

You get used to it when you live in the Deep South and Bible Belt. They seem to be very generous giving to good causes. It is freaky when your co-worker starts seriously talking about casting demons. :shocked:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: daniel49

True, only the members that give would be the conservatives
Just jerking your chain...Merry Christmas

Same to you, Merry Christmas!

 

[her209]

My charity can beat up your charity.

 

[ericlp]

My god has a bigger dick then your god.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: ericlp
My god has a bigger dick then your god.

your god is black?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: ericlp
My god has a bigger dick then your god.

your god is black?

He's a Himalayan Yeti:shocked:

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: ericlp
My god has a bigger dick then your god.

your god is black?

Odds are, if it's one of the desert religions, the answer is yes.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If the Conservatives are being more charitable, that's great since they've inflicted tremendous amounts of expense and damage onto other Americans. They've tried to make abortion illegal and difficult to obtain. They've opposed stem cell research. They've tried to force their religious mystic insanity on other Americans. They've opposed assisted suicide for terminally ill people, etc. I'm sure the value of their charity pales in comparison to the value of the damage they've inflicted upon the American populace.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
If the Conservatives are being more charitable, that's great since they've inflicted tremendous amounts of expense and damage onto other Americans. They've tried to make abortion illegal and difficult to obtain. They've opposed stem cell research. They've tried to force their religious mystic insanity on other Americans. They've opposed assisted suicide for terminally ill people, etc. I'm sure the value of their charity pales in comparison to the value of the damage they've inflicted upon the American populace.

put your keyboard down before you hurt yourself.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Wow a OpEd with stats from a "study" that has been proven flawed many times over.

nice post, troll. :roll:



"charity gap is largely erased when religious giving is not considered"

and

"Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information" since it would sell more books.


Thats just the tip of the misinformation that has been passed around as truth from these "studys"

This has been posted over and over.
I guess this OpEd writer is just getting this or trying to rewash it for all the idiots out there like the OP that believe anything a right wing nut job/Faux news tells them.

Ok, so how is the study flawed. Seems theres a lot of information supporting it. As for religious donations.....Do you really think all the extra money is just spent on big houses and fast cars for the preachers?? I assure you churchs do more for the poor and needy then the museums and symphonies liberals may donate to.......

Your doing a good job of trying to cover up liberals tightass nature arent you. Troll. Have to throw that out there too.

Did you even read what i wrote...


"charity gap is largely erased when religious giving is not considered"

and

"Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information" since it would sell more books.

He admits he left data out and skewed other data to sell books. Mind you idiots like yourself and the "news" jumped on the headline "liberals don?t give..." while he laughed his way to the bank on the stupidity of the likes of you and other idiots.

He isnt the only person to write about this. Are you suggesting we disregard religious charity? If so, why? Is it not giving?

if giving to the church counts as charity, then i think my fraternity dues should be counted as charity as well, since about the same portion is used in public service and they are both pretty much nothing more than social/interest clubs.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Why even bother posting such inflammatory drivel? If you really believe liberals are evil, then you basically hate 50% of this country.

Instead of posting this crap, why not try to find some things that you have in common with liberals and agree to disagree on other things? That way, we, as a country, might move to a more productive dialogue versus the current "you suck," "nuhh uhhh you suck more" shit that goes on.

Do you really think that he's interested in that, at all? I mean this seriously, do you actually think that he posts here because he wants to participate in a constructive exchange of ideas?

You mean like the last 8 years of your side's "constructive exchange"? :laugh:

Seriously though -it's quite entertaining to see all the twisted panties over this...

normal people get a bit worked up over being baselessly slandered.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Seek professional help. You are dangerously paranoid and your description of the people who live around you is badly deluded.

I'm completely serious.

Ahhh, the age old "Your crazy, thats not true". Seen it before. No, I'm perfectly normal and it IS true. You DO want to steal my money to give to knuckledraggers.

You DO want to have more government telling me what I can and cannot do. You just dont think so because in your warped little mind all of this is good and its whats needed, so you dont see the evils of it. More to the point those who oppose bigger .gov and more taxes are considered evil, crazy or otherwise beneath you in some way.

No, you really aren't normal. You're creating caricatured enemies out of fringe viewpoints, attempting to assign them to large swaths of society that you must fight (and actively wish harm upon), and creating an aura of paranoia and persecution around yourself based on virtually nothing. Again, this is dangerously paranoid.

There are a few other options, you could know that what you're saying is bullshit in which case you're just being a jackass, and there's a small chance you've been so sheltered that you actually believe it but only through ignorance. Other than that, you seriously need help.

Let me make sure I understand this, for my own sake.

If a ATDU poster comes on railing against the "Bushwhackos" and their supporters and they should be considered traitors and be jailed or worse thats ok. But to turn around and describe the opposite party, Democrats (or liberals, a subset thereof) as anything other then calm, normal and rational invites attacks of being crazy and in need of professional help?

So what your saying is that ultimately its ok for one side to wish all manner of punishment and pain to the other, but then in turn for that side to do the same is viewed as a mental handicap of some type?

Theres an AMAZING amount of irony and double standard here. Expected considering the batshit crazy liberals we have, but wow. I didnt even think the ATDU liberals were that bad.

This place never disappoints.

you must not read nearly as much as you post, because harvey and dave get told off by liberals pretty often around here.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Why even bother posting such inflammatory drivel? If you really believe liberals are evil, then you basically hate 50% of this country.

Instead of posting this crap, why not try to find some things that you have in common with liberals and agree to disagree on other things? That way, we, as a country, might move to a more productive dialogue versus the current "you suck," "nuhh uhhh you suck more" shit that goes on.

Do you really think that he's interested in that, at all? I mean this seriously, do you actually think that he posts here because he wants to participate in a constructive exchange of ideas?

You mean like the last 8 years of your side's "constructive exchange"? :laugh:

Seriously though -it's quite entertaining to see all the twisted panties over this...

Yeah that's the Christmas Spirit, spread the good cheer:roll:

Ah, so one side has to bend over and spread their good cheer so the other can bone them? Puhfugginleeze. BJ and eskimo got what they were giving.

what exactly did you give them besides a childish contortion of a snide remark?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
If the Conservatives are being more charitable, that's great since they've inflicted tremendous amounts of expense and damage onto other Americans. They've tried to make abortion illegal and difficult to obtain. They've opposed stem cell research. They've tried to force their religious mystic insanity on other Americans. They've opposed assisted suicide for terminally ill people, etc. I'm sure the value of their charity pales in comparison to the value of the damage they've inflicted upon the American populace.

save it for another thread please.




statistically these numbers don't really mean much, since it does not take into account other effects. Liberals and conservatives tend to be concentrated in different parts of the country, with different social habits, comparing liberals and conservatives within the same geographic area, income and education class, etc might be more relevant. For example, if liberals tend to be the urban poor, for whom charitable giving is much more difficult economically, then we woudl expect their numbers to be lower in percentage terms than conservatives. Even the labels liberal and conservative are pretty meaningless, since it does not indicate much about the type of liberal or conservative, and since the linked study admits he threw off the numbers intentionally to get a result, its really virtually meaningless, statistically.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Why even bother posting such inflammatory drivel? If you really believe liberals are evil, then you basically hate 50% of this country.

Instead of posting this crap, why not try to find some things that you have in common with liberals and agree to disagree on other things? That way, we, as a country, might move to a more productive dialogue versus the current "you suck," "nuhh uhhh you suck more" shit that goes on.

Do you really think that he's interested in that, at all? I mean this seriously, do you actually think that he posts here because he wants to participate in a constructive exchange of ideas?

You mean like the last 8 years of your side's "constructive exchange"? :laugh:

Seriously though -it's quite entertaining to see all the twisted panties over this...

normal people get a bit worked up over being baselessly slandered.

"slander"? Puhfugginleeze. You libs take yourself WAY too seriously. Pull the stick out... seriously.