election map

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Mark writes:

My bad, how 'bout this: How long before them grandsons get to go off and
fight one of
Georgie-boys oil wars?


Oil wars? That's not even a "nice" try. Don't forget to get your tinfoil hat
cleaned, Opie.

I wasn't really goin' for nice, and it really doesn't matter the reason, as long as
you continue to help elect these war mongerin' morons your grand kids will have a good
chance of dyin' before you do, in a foreign land, not protecting America's but Bush
et. al.'s interests.

HTH

Op

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
As I suspected, the poor states, having relatively lower populations
and low mean icomes, are distorted by the donations of the high income
earners in those states. This site has the answer in it's
spreadsheets of over $200K and all returns. The high income earners
in these poor states are amongst the largest givers. That has a
disporpotionate effect vs. wealthy states. In high income states, the
largest earners don't have the same distorting effects. Too bad they
don't have a spreadsheet for the under $200K returns as that would be
far more meaningful.

It's the problem when mean is used to produce an index like this.

Peter

Left out of all of this is the time that many people give to charities which isn't
deducted from their taxes.

Let me see if any conservative time givers come to mind......Nope! What about liberal
time givers..........sure enough...Jimmy Carter!

Mark

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

Very interesting. Pity they didn't give the rankings of all the states.

The link at the bottom did.

So it does. Thanks. I see that my own home state, Wisconsin, ranks 46th on
the Generosity Index.

Also interesting is

http://www.onphilanthropy.com/tren_c...002-06-27.html

Agreed, that is interesting......and not surprising. However, as Peter
pointed out with regard to the Generosity Index, what is clearly implied is
not necessarily what is clearly so.

In the On Philanthropy column we see the line, "The full report will be
released today in New York, but its implications are clear - religious
Americans give more of their time and their money than non-religious
Americans."

But that is only one implication, and the reader is left not knowing whether
another subtler one has any basis in fact. Watson states explicitly that
"households who give to faith-based charities generally give more overall to
all charities...". I'm willing to accept that.....on faith, as it were.
The rest of the article goes on to support this thesis, detail where some of
this money goes, and explore some of the ramifications of this giving.
However, I think Watson has also inserted (and left unsupported) a
suggestion that faith based households contribute more to secular
organizations than do those who contribute only to such.

Wolfgang

On 10 Nov 2004 21:55:23 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote:

Barnards writes:

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg

What is your point, Barnard? Or do you have one.

Heard today that the blue states are the least likely states to give to
charities. The #1 state, most generous that is, is Mississippi. The least
generous? NY, VT, MA, and CT. Says a helluva lot more than a 100 year old
map.

OK, how about this map: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm or this one:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html or this
analysis: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/bush.html ? g
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

Charlie Choc wrote:
On 10 Nov 2004 21:55:23 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse)
wrote:

Barnards writes:

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg

What is your point, Barnard? Or do you have one.

Heard today that the blue states are the least likely states to give
to charities. The #1 state, most generous that is, is Mississippi.
The least generous? NY, VT, MA, and CT. Says a helluva lot more
than a 100 year old map.

OK, how about this map: http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm or this
one:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html
or this analysis: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/bush.html ? g --

IQ common sense
College education common sense
--
HTH,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Mark opines:

Let me see if any conservative time givers come to mind......Nope! What
about liberal
time givers..........sure enough...Jimmy Carter!


Wow! You're psychic too. Only problem-- your crystal ball is cracked. I have
several conservative friends that travel to Haiti each year (own expense) and
help build homes, schools, etc. And, ain't it strange that Jimmy is a
Christian? d;o)

Charlie Choc:

Yeah, all that data from Bush haters. Duh!

On 11 Nov 2004 14:18:46 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote:

Charlie Choc:

Yeah, all that data from Bush haters.

The IQ data probably, the other data was from places like the census, the
federal register. the Wal-Mart annual report.

Duh!
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:14:29 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote:

IQ common sense
College education common sense

Being dumb or uneducated doesn't guarantee common sense either. So what's your
point? g
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

Charlie Choc writes:

The IQ data probably,

Probably? Bwwwaaahahahaha

the other data was from places like the census, the
federal register. the Wal-Mart annual repo

Sorta makes ya proud to be a cracker from Georgia, eh?