President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 06, 2007 08:31 PM UTC

Study: State is stingy, Springs is generous

  • 55 Comments
  • by: Foghorn

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

from the Gazette:

Bucking a statewide trend of stinginess, Colorado Springs residents are more generous in donating to charities than residents of most other Colorado cities, according to the first study of individual philanthropic giving within the state.

http://www.gazette.com/article…

Comments

55 thoughts on “Study: State is stingy, Springs is generous

    1. READER BEWARE: This study did NOT measure what people contributed to charities.

      From Appendix 2: “… this study evaluated only charitable contributions data recorded on Schedule A (Itemized Deductions) of taxpayers that itemize deductions using schedule 1040, 1040-A or 1040-EZ.

      What this study measured was what charitable donations people itemized on their tax returns.

      Thus, what we have here is an index of who has the most itemized deductions. Nothing more. Is anyone surprised by the results?

      I don’t itemize donations. I’m not making these contributions to get a tax break but rather because there are some causes I want to support.

  1. for those who claim our low ratings on things like per capita spending on education and various social programs don’t mean we’re stingy.  It just means we prefer private, voluntary charity over the government forcing us to pay higher taxes. Apparently, not so much: We ARE just plain stingy.

  2. I was wondering where the People’s Republic of Boulder fell in the study. I did not see their city mentioned.

    Just goes to show that even though the liberals call us down and say our residents are mongrels and such, doesn’t mean we are.

    As you have said before, conservatives are more generous than liberals. liberals just want us to give our money to the black hole known as government and not to the people that really need it.

        1. Last year’s stats on this attempted some breakdown by category.  BoCo gives almost nothing to churches, but had similar numbers to most counties for other charities.  Mesa was the opposite.

          Statewide, the low numbers may relate to growth–Colorado has more new residents than most states, and we’re slightly more likely to move around.  In Boulder, 1/3 of the population are under 25 and only attend school here.  That’s a big factor.

            1. I love the way you have with numbers.

              AFA: 4463 students

              CC: 2000 or less

              Colorado Springs: 360,000+ residents

              El Paso County: 576,000+ residents

              CU: 28,000 students

              Boulder: 96,000+ residents

              Boulder County: 290,000+ residents

              It would seem Colorado Springs’ percentage of voting-age students is much, much lower than Boulder’s.  Do you agree?

              1. not part of Colorado Springs.

                So your numbers would have to be ajusted to this:

                AFA: 4463 students

                AFA total population: 7526

                57% students

                CU: 27,853 students

                Boulder: 91,685 residents

                30.3% students

    1. has consistently ranked near the bottom of charity-giving nationwide. I used to work for a non-profit in Boulder working with mentally handicapped youth, and scrounging for funds was always extremely difficult. I think it has, in part, to do with the liberal philosophy that government should be helping to solve problems, the reasoning being that one gives more to the government (yes in taxes) and then the government is able to provide more services to more people than private groups ever could individually. Legitimate I think, but admittedly a bit problematic as well.

    2. since you’re crowing about your town, and shown you can afford it (anyone considering a $52k truck the same year he bought a fancy new motorcycle has spare money), you might as well go on record with how much you’ve contributed to your town’s newfound image of generosity.

        1. I never heard it before.

          But that was an aside, not meritorious of it’s own reply. My point is, Gecko wants to crow about living in the most generous place in Colorado, I want to know how much he’s living up to that.

      1. in the neighborhood of 2-3K a year I guess. Not that it is anyone’s business.

        Today alone I gave $30.00 to buy two calendars for a dog rescue mission here in town.

        I don’t always give a lot. It depends on how much money I have left over after my bills are paid. So in a dollars to income ratio I do not give as much as I’m sure many others do.

        But then again I’m just a lowly blue collar white trash biker. I do however think it is ironic that the same ones here that spout about how we should help the poor, help the elderly, help the children, etc are in the class of the stingiest in Colorado. And the ones that ya’ll bash are in fact the most generous.

        1. I never bash anyone for what they do or don’t give. I used to give around $1k a year but can’t afford it now – I only work part time so I can watch my almost-3 year old while my wife draws the bulk of our income and I plan the small business I want to launch. Not much left over for charity or creature comforts.

          But I don’t sit in judgment of what others do and do not. I’m glad you’re doing your part – that gives you the right to brag. But that doesn’t make liberal policies wrong or conservative policies right.

          1. The best contribution one can make to charities is not your cash … it’s your time.

            Spend a Saturday working on a Habitat for Humanity site swinging a hammer or a paint brush. (once or twice a week)

            Be a SCORE counselor and help small businesses get started or sort through various problems.  (requires 2 or 3 hours once a week)

            http://www.coloradospringsscor

            Volunteer at Home Front Cares to help area Vets deal with the stresses of Iraq deployments.

            Volunteer at CASA and be an advocate for children in court.

            Volunteer to serve on any of the fund raising efforts of local charities.

            Here’s a listing of Colorado Springs charities.  Call one of them and ask how you can volunteer.  There are 75 pages listing area charities, so there’s something for everyone.

            http://www.charity-charities.o

            1. I’ve got another baby on the way so it’ll be a busy year… But I must definitely get involved that way. (BTW I’m in Denver so Colo. Springs is a bit far to go, but thanks for the links.)

      2. satisfied with giving on it’s own merits.  They are so screwed up and hateful that they have to use their giving as a weapon.  It really is kind of sad that they have to stand at the corner and proclaim how magnificent they are because of how much they give.  And these are the same folks that cause the electrical meter to spin like a roulette wheel to power their Christmas lights.  Maybe they do give more monetarily but they are gluttonous consumers killing our planet.  These overfed and over righteous “givers” are killing our planet.  How about giving the rest of us a break and unplugging a strand or two or would you consider that an infringement on your religion of over consuming and an egregious attack in the “War on Christmas”?

        I don’t care how much or how little you give as long as you are careful in how you live.  We need sustainable cultures to survive a world in transformation that is faced with massive resource shortages.  How about “giving” up your pilgrimages to the Shopping Mall?  It is easy to cite statistics to support any position.  It is much more difficult to adopt a simpler lifestyle that consumes less.  Live simply so that others can simply live.

        1. for our Christmas gifts we make donations in each other’s name to causes that we like.

          Here are a couple that I like

          http://www.heifer.org – They help buy farm animals so that the recipients can use them to become self sufficient.

          http://livingwater.theh2oproje

          This organization helps drill wells to provide clean water for villages.  Clean water not only prevents an assortment of diseases from drinking from contaminated sources, it also allows the girls to go to school.  Girls are the primary water carriers and there have been studies that they spend six hours a day carrying water.

          http://www.nature.org/ – The Nature Conservancy.  An organized and effective conservation organization.

        2. How are conservatives using contributions to charity as a weapon? I give because I want to give, not to prove a point.  

          All I am trying to do is clear up misconceptions that many liberals have that conservatives are not generous or compassionate.  

          As for your statement about Christmas lights and destroying the planet, I don’t know what that has to do with giving to charity.  

          1. nuance so that I don’t have to consider the consequences of what I do”. Foghorn

            You are not trying to clear up misconceptions.  You are trying to say that conservatives are better than liberals because they give more.  It is the old conservative superiority complex only using contributions as your weapon.

            If you don’t understand that Christmas lights take electricity and our planet is burning up with human heat then you seriously don’t understand the consequences of resource depletion.  Either that or you don’t want to admit that Christmas has turned into a gigantic consumer extravaganza with monumental waste.  Read the sentence again carefully and maybe the light bulb will go off.  

            1. That is what I am trying to clear up.  Liberals give less money and time to charity than conservatives do.  

              I am not saying that conservatives are better people than liberals because they give more, I am just trying to get people who call conservatives stingy, Scrooges, uncompassionate and the like to understand that conservatives do care.  

              I am more than willing that Christmas has turned into a consumer extravaganza and there is plenty of waste.  I would love to see people focus on the true meaning of Christmas, Jesus Christ.  

            2. You state that conservatives give more money and time to charities but you inflate your figures by including churches whose stated purpose is to evangelize and proselytize.  You are using biased statistics to arrive at your conclusions.  I am sorry for you that you have to believe that you give more and you volunteer more.  It is obvious that you don’t know very many Christian or secular liberals.

              Conservatives have earned their reputation of stinginess by and miserliness by their hatred for government social programs which help those less fortunate than themselves.  Maybe it is appropriate to criticize the effectiveness of government but government works to help all without regard to their religious affiliation.  The prevailing attitude of conservatives is selfishness and the “they are all illegal or welfare queens who don’t deserve my dollars” attitude.  

              1. Various studies have said that conservatives give more.  I am just agreeing with their findings.  

                The studies include churches because they are well accepted charities.  Sure churches evangelize, but my church also runs a soup kitchen, thrift shop, food pantry, assists people with medical needs, and so on.  (regardless of faith or even no faith)

                “You are using biased statistics to arrive at your conclusions.”  

                Again, thess are not my studies, I have not done a study, I am relying on studies done by other individuals and groups.  They are teh ones who studied the evidence and found, contrary to popular opinion that conservatives give more money and time than liberals do.

                “Conservatives have earned their reputation of stinginess by and miserliness by their hatred for government social programs which help those less fortunate than themselves.”

                This line is classic liberalism.  Liberals assume that by forcing people to pay taxes and then using that money to help those in need, you are being charitable.  Forcing people to pay taxes so you can run your failed social programs is not charity.  I hope you can see the difference.  

            3. Now you are starting to repeat conservative lies.

              Our society has been the best in the world lifting millions out of poverty and allowing unnumbered children from the underclass to attend college.  If you want to look at failed social programs look at the Bush Administrations cutting of funds and the increase by millions of people and children now living in poverty.

              Vetoing the SCHIP program was a classic example of the hatred of conservatives for the underclass.  Ten million children would have been provided basic health care but “You can never raise my taxes” selfish conservatives think running a few food kitchens is better.  What a joke.  Good government works but you aren’t honest enough to admit it.

              As far as counting churches as charities paying for armed guards for the New Life Ministries buildings is essential but it shouldn’t count as charity.  I would bet the majority of the contributions to churches go to self sustaining activities rather than funding true charitable causes but then again you and I would probably disagree what a charitable cause is.  I don’t consider re-enslaving women charitable.

              1. Just kidding 🙂

                You are right, Our society has been the best in the world lifting millions out of poverty and allowing unnumbered children from the underclass to attend college., but it has not been because of government programs.  It was because of hard work, entrepreneurship,  innovation, and people taking risks.  

                As for poverty, an analysis of University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data shows that “only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991.”  That means that 95% of the people who are currently in the bottom 20% of our economy will not be there forever.  

                In another study, Robert Rector found that “76 percent of poor people have air conditioning; 97 percent of poor people owned at least one color television; 73 percent of poor people have a microwave; Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes; Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities; nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars; Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.

                Vetoing SCHIP doesn’t show hatred, it shows that there is a better way to do things than to just throw money at it.  The “War on Poverty’ is a prime example.  Liberals declared war on poverty and $7 trillion dollars later, the problem still persists.  Government hardly ever works and that is why the founding fathers made sure that government was well defined as to what it could and could not do.  

                Just a point of fact, New Life does not pay their security guards, they are volunteers.  All I can say is that fortunately you are not in charge of the IRS, deciding who gets to be a charity and who does not.  If I was in charge I am sure that the ACLU, PETA, the Sierra Club would not be charities.

                By the way, who is re-enslaving women???

            4. . . . but it has not been because of government programs.  It was because of hard work, entrepreneurship,  innovation, and people taking risks.

              Thanks for the exchange Foghorn.  I appreciated your thoughtful replies.

              As far as dismissing the involvement of government in helping the poor I couldn’t disagree more with you.  The great civil rights legislation of the ’60 occurred because of the involvement of government.  Corporations don’t care about the poor because they can’t make any money off of them.  I’m always amazed that people who are as religious as you claim to be are so gung ho on how efficient our war machine is but have a deep hatred for using our government for peaceful purposes.  Our military is the best in the world and any criticism of it is swiftly met with condemnation but talk about peaceful uses for improving the lives of our people and folks like you can’t wait to heap contempt on it.  I consider pro-war Christians apostates who take the name of the Prince of Peace in vain.

              When I looked at single issue organizations like The Nature Conservancy I found that they spend about 22% of their budget on overhead.

              http://www.nature.org/aboutus/

              I have no problem with churches being classified as charities.  I just think your claim that you’re a better person than liberals because you give to churches is exaggerated.  Your approach isn’t more peaceful and the funds collected aren’t necessarily used to improve the standard of living for our society.  I have a friend who just underwent surgery for throat cancer.  My high school friends went together and pitched in to help him with his medical costs.  That won’t show up on my tax return but I do what I can to help those around me including working to make our government better.  I simply don’t believe that our society will be better if it is ruled by rich corporate CEO’s who are only motivated by greed and keeping the war machine humming.  Our society benefits from public sector goods and services that aren’t driven by for-profit considerations.

              Take care and pray that your Savior will take away your lust for “shock and awe”.

          2. It is a net loss scenario.  You give money to your church which improves the world but you carelessly consume resources which degrades the world.  You think you are a wonderful, caring and courageous person for giving so much but you ignore what a skank you are for your insatiable appetite to mindlessly consume.  You take more than you give.

            Here is a letter that was posted in the Daily Camera in the notoriously liberal city Boulder. http://www.dailycamera.com/new

            Holiday lights

            Wasted energy doesn’t help environment

            I have an issue with the extravagant lights that have been set up around Boulder. They are nice to look at but the coal power plants that are powering them aren’t helping to stop global warming. A better option might be lights that are only on for an hour or so after dark. Also lights on and in peoples homes should only be turned on when they’re being shown off or being appreciated. If there’s nobody looking they don’t need to be on at all.

            SAM CHAPMAN

            Nederland  

  3. that churches are classified as a charity so giving to keep your local pastor supplied with meth and gay sex would be counted as a charitable contribution.

    Actually there is a disclaimer in the article by a religious organization that stated they did a study and found that giving to churches isn’t that significant.  No hidden agenda there.

    I liked the individual who stated that charities need to do a better job of gaining the trust of their donors.  If the Republicans hadn’t wasted so much on Iraq and driven gas prices to double what they were maybe there would be more money in the economy for charitable giving.  

    1. Do you think the number of conservative churches with bad leadership is higher, lower, or the same as liberal churches or other liberal organizations?

      “If the Republicans hadn’t wasted so much on Iraq and driven gas prices to double what they were maybe there would be more money in the economy for charitable giving.”

      Acording to the study, giving was up 13% in 2005 over 2004.  Coloradoans also have the 5th highest adjusted gross income in the United States, and the lowest income brackets gave the most money to charity.  

      1. is liberal or conservative.  The first financial responsibility of a church is to pay the pastor.  If you think that qualifies as charity then count it.  Other people would tend to discount giving to churches to maintain churches as charity but hey they are those damn secular humanists who give to saving polar bears instead.  The wingnuts like to brag that they give more than liberals but they also gave to George Bush’s reelection.  What is it about a fool and his money.

        1. Where does it say that in the bible?  I would really like to know.  

          tell that to the Mormons.  they don’t pay any of their church leadership.

          And tell it to the Christians, where many ministers get paid small wages being as the average size of a church in the United States is less than 200 members(1/4 of all churches have less than 50 members and 1/2 of all chruches have less than 100 members.  Only one in ten churches have more than 1,000 people who attend on a regular basis).

          Paying a pastor doesn’t make it a charity. You may discount giving to a church as giving to a charity, but the government says otherwise.  

        2. to build and run those mega-churches and the Catholic Church pays routinely pays their multi-million dollar pedophile settlements with non-charitable giving?  Maybe the hardcore Republicans believe that religion isn’t a big business but those in the reality based community tend to buy other charitable services without the overhead.  Of course churches engage in outreach and charitable activities but they are an expensive middleman.  They raise tons of money for their buildings and professional pastors.  My wife was the treasurer of a small church so I know how the bills get paid.  Churches also require that their donors deny reality and accept fantasy beliefs like the sperm of a rapist must be allowed to germinate in the women he raped.  I’d rather pay to save polar bears than pay some professional pastor to crusade for preserving the sperm of rapists.

          1. .

            in our weekly charitable contributions.  

            Those people were hurt by our church;

            the least we can do is pay those judgments that don’t even come close to making the victims whole.  

            Some Catholics are bothered by that.

            Some Catholics have even quit giving,

            because they want “their” money to go to other uses.  

            I don’t condemn that, but I also don’t understand it.

            Churches are supposed to be about healing and forgiveness,  

            behavior modeled by our Divine Inspiration.  

            Certainly the healing of those that we –

            as an institution –

            hurt so grievously

            must be as important as

            feeding starving children in Africa ?

            .

            1. We allowed child molesters who masqueraded as men of God to savage our children, in some cases for years, and now we are paying for the secrecy and negligence of the all mighty Catholic hierarchy and deducting it from our tax return all the while patting ourselves on the back because of how generous we are.

              It is kind of like the broken window analogy.  When a window is broken some one gets paid to fix it but the materials and time spent to repair a previously working object could have been used for other purposes.

              I understand your preference to help bail out your denomination from these heinous crimes against humanity but it doesn’t lessen the fact that your fixing a broken window.  Maybe if the Catholic Church wasn’t so hung up on sex and controlling other peoples lives they could be more effective in their mission.

          2. I am not a catholic, so I will not comment on their behalf.  

            And for the record, there are many liberal charities that have skeletons in their closets.  

            “..in the reality based community tend to buy other charitable services without the overhead.”

            Can you give me some examples?  I don’t know what you have heard about Christian Churches (and there are ones that are financially corrupt, just like there are liberal charities that are financially corrupt) but the vast majority use their money wisely.  

            Talking about professional pastors, I agree that there are too many professionals in the ministry today, here is a great book to read on the subject:  

            http://www.amazon.com/Brothers

            You seem to not like the church very much and I dare say that it has jaded you in your argument.  

            1. taken over the church and made it fashionable to be a Pro-War Christian.  Talk about Judas’ for Jesus.  How can you follow the Prince of Peace and clamor to fly nukes over Iran.  My original point is that contributions to churches might count in this study but there is a lot of overhead in these organizations.  I would say that church contributions should be weighted because of the overhead involved in running a church.

              As far as being jaded you are implying that my logic is suspect.  I could also say that you have been brainwashed by the Pharisees to believe that their churches are without sin so you are gullible in your argument.

              From Matthew 7:21

              “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many might works in your name?”  And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’.”

              Are you one of those who thinks he is doing mighty things like supporting war as the solution to mankind’s problems and doing it in his name?

              1. If that is true, why would you want Christians to bring their religious beliefs into government decisions?  OR do you believe that there is no separation of church and state?

                I am sure that there is a lot of overhead in some churches, just like there is a lot of overhead in organizations like the NAACP, NOW, ACLU, and so on.  So if you weight the study to counter high overhead in churches (which would be an arbitrary measure ate best), you would have to do the same for liberal groups as well.  I think that high overhead is the exception to the rule and most churches have very low overhead.  

                You could say that I have been brainwashed by the Pharisees to believe that their churches are without sin so you are gullible in your argument, but you would be wrong.  I don’t think there is a church or an individual on this Earth who is without sin, myself included.  Everyone sins, and to be saved we have to accept Jesus.

                Matthew 7:21 is a great verse.  So are Matthew 7:1-6 and Matthew 7:15-20. I think they give much needed context to Matthew 7:21.  

                God often ordered the Israelites to declare war on other nations (Joshua 4:13 and 1 Samuel 15:3). HE also ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (look at Exodus 21:12; 21:15; 22:19). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but rather only murder.  Sometimes war is inevitable (Romans 3:10-18).  Heck, read Revelations and see what God has planned, it is very violent.  

                    1. Is God so stupid that she talks in God time and not human time?

                      Every time you religious cons use this worn out excuse I want to just scream.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

37 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!