REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Right wingers donate more to charity , and it's not even close!

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2009 09:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8789
PAGE 1 of 4

Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.


If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

georgewill@washpost.com





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:16 AM

CITIZEN


Well, they say they give to charity, but when it comes down to it, they often wriggle out of it:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37722&m=693144#693126

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


No, they give. The numbers show it. You just have nothing to support your claim.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:33 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, they give. The numbers show it. You just have nothing to support your claim.

Uhuh. You've not shown any numbers. You've nothing to support your claim.

Besides, even if it's true, doesn't change the fact that you give nothing, and use charities to make yourself look good, while doing and giving nothing :).

Weasel out of the fact you won't good on your promise any way you want, at the end you've proven yourself nothing but a selfish petty fool, who talks the talk, but won't walk the walk.

On the topic itself, there's no proof that it was conservatives giving that money. It's an aggregate based on the states voting record and donations. That includes the money given by Democrats in those states. As usual you claim something is proven, while the evidence doesn't begin to support that statement.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:06 AM

WHOZIT


Left-Wingers need the money for drugs and ugly hookers....it's a fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:15 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Left-Wingers need the money for drugs and ugly hookers....it's a fact.

So many yo mumma jokes being set up, can't, help it...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:01 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Do they include "religious tithing" as charity? Because I think that would help explain why conservatives donate so much more - they're more religious. Also, many charities are religious or run by religious organizations, and secularists may be loath to donate to them because they don't want their money going to proselytizing.

Although it is the case that the religious generally have better organizing power than the non-religious, so I think that the religious (and therefore conservatives) being more charitable could be true, but I'd have to know more about how this study was conducted before giving it credibility.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:04 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Do they include "religious tithing" as charity? Because I think that would help explain why conservatives donate so much more - they're more religious. Also, many charities are religious or run by religious organizations, and secularists may be loath to donate to them because they don't want their money going to proselytizing.

Although it is the case that the religious generally have better organizing power than the non-religious, so I think that the religious (and therefore conservatives) being more charitable could be true, but I'd have to know more about how this study was conducted before giving it credibility.
They also donate more blood, (I just give money) do you think they care if a Democrat gets their blood if they need it, or would they want it back?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:31 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
They also donate more blood, (I just give money) do you think they care if a Democrat gets their blood if they need it, or would they want it back?


How much more blood? A drop, an ounce? It doesn't say. And, if it is a significant amount, I'd chalk that up to the better organizational structures the conservatives have, in part because they tend to be more religious.

Also, another reason why conservatives may give more blood is that they are able to - there tend to be more (out) LGBTs among liberals, and gay and bisexual men are barred by the FDA from giving blood if they've had sex with a man anytime after 1977:

http://www.fda.gov/CBER/faq/msmdonor.htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:40 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Do they include "religious tithing" as charity? Because I think that would help explain why conservatives donate so much more - they're more religious. Also, many charities are religious or run by religious organizations, and secularists may be loath to donate to them because they don't want their money going to proselytizing.

Although it is the case that the religious generally have better organizing power than the non-religious, so I think that the religious (and therefore conservatives) being more charitable could be true, but I'd have to know more about how this study was conducted before giving it credibility.

That's my take. The basis for the study so far is that "Red states" gave more than "Blue States". But that doesn't actually prove anything.

The fact is though that religious people, according to the article, give more to charity, not Conservative people. It just happens that Conservatives tend to be religious. But people like Rapo, who identify themselves as atheist, are in the same group as the godless non-giving liberals...

Anyway. Yeah, churches are charities, and religious people will be giving to them. I wonder how that figures, because going to church for the religious is a social activity, so they're putting in social activity as a charity, while atheists will have social activities they pay for that aren't charities.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:25 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
But people like Rapo, who identify themselves as atheist, are in the same group as the godless non-giving liberals...


Oh, I give. Money and blood. Want my blood donor card # ?




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:37 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Oh, I give. Money and blood. Want my blood donor card # ?

Uhuh, sure you do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:11 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Oh, I give. Money and blood. Want my blood donor card # ?

Uhuh, sure you do.


Not as tricky as you think you are. You want me to give specifics, and then accuse me of being braggadocios.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:29 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Oh, I give. Money and blood. Want my blood donor card # ?

Uhuh, sure you do.


Not as tricky as you think you are. You want me to give specifics, and then accuse me of being braggadocios.



Maybe if you gave them your blood type, that may shut them up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:29 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


They wouldn't believe it I did.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:45 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not as tricky as you think you are. You want me to give specifics, and then accuse me of being braggadocios.

Braggadocios isn't a word. I never asked you for your blood donor number. The only specifics I asked for were was the receipt where you made good on your promise to donate $500 to charity, something you then clearly said you had never any intention of doing. So clearly not only am I as tricky as I think I am, you and your lies aren't as clever or as watertight as you'd like.

As you are a proven liar, there is no reason to believe you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


The fact I'm having to restate this point to you proves you're a troll. I asked for you to show where you HAD, prior to my posting of the challenge, anywhere in the thread discussed the main subject of news anchor Sanchez and his comments. You failed to do that, and instead tried to slip in a few random comments after the fact.

You failed to meet the obligations of the challenge. As you continue to fail. I've stated this simple fact for you once already, and if you'd taken the time to read my challenge fully, and more slowly, then you'd realize WHY you had failed.

Shows how little you care that you'd go reaching for $$ not yours, not earned, and not even in agreement w/ the posted challenge.

Might be you learn a few things from this lesson, but I'm kinda doubting it.

p.s.

Quote:
Braggadocios isn't a word.


Main Entry: braggadocious
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: overly proud, bragging in excess
Etymology: derivative of the mock-Italian braggadocio meaning 'idle boaster'

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braggadocious




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:43 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The fact I'm having to restate this point to you proves you're a troll. I asked for you to show where you HAD, prior to my posting of the challenge, anywhere in the thread discussed the main subject of news anchor Sanchez and his comments. You failed to do that, and instead tried to slip in a few random comments after the fact.

You failed to meet the obligations of the challenge. As you continue to fail. I've stated this simple fact for you once already, and if you'd taken the time to read my challenge fully, and more slowly, then you'd realize WHY you had failed.

Shows how little you care that you'd go reaching for $$ not yours, not earned, and not even in agreement w/ the posted challenge.

Might be you learn a few things from this lesson, but I'm kinda doubting it.

p.s.

Quote:
Braggadocios isn't a word.


Main Entry: braggadocious
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: overly proud, bragging in excess
Etymology: derivative of the mock-Italian braggadocio meaning 'idle boaster'

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braggadocious

Italian isn't English, and desperately shouting "you're a troll" doesn't change that you act like a troll, and I don't. Again you try to change the original subject of the thread, unable to meet the threads original subject, and attempt to blame your actions on others. Ever the consummate far right authoritarian troll, incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions.

And as I said, you made a promise to give to charity to make yourself look good, and in order to attack me, and you had absolutely no intention of making good. The fact you confirm that that is the truth, but then try to claim that it proves me wrong in my statements, proves you're a delusional fool. You've never given to charity and you never will, you only use the idea of doing so to try to make yourself look good, but you never follow through. The fact that you make these wild promises, and ALWAYS have a way of wriggling out of them, proves everything about you, and ~I'm afraid nothing about me.

Continue to prove yourself a troll, the more you erroneously cast aspersions at others, the more you prove it true of yourself

Claiming corrupted Italian words are English merely proves how stupid and ignorant you are:
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=bragga
docious&branch=&textsearchtype=exact

I guess these lies and delusions are how evil child murderers such as yourself live with yourselves. Fortunately these delusions only work on you, which is why you are doomed to continue to live your sad evil and pathetic life, alone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 2:11 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


So, you're claim that a word isn't a word, even when it's listed in the dictionary?

I never made a promise, it was a challenge to you. YOU failed, as I'm sure you're use to doing.

Hell, the entire English language is a corruption, so why you'd try to claim otherwise, is only something a troll like you could answer.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 2:34 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, you're claim that a word isn't a word, even when it's listed in the dictionary?

It's not in the Oxford English Dictionary. It's not an English word. Only a stupid ignorant troll could think otherwise. Man you're this desperate to avoid discussing the topic you'll try to claim Italian is English? They're not even similarly rooted languages. God you're such a stupid loony.
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I never made a promise, it was a challenge to you. YOU failed, as I'm sure you're use to doing.

You're still proving me right. That you're too stupid to realise that is hardly anything new. You said you would do something in order to make yourself look good and me bad via the offer, but you placed restrictions on it that were impossible to fulfil. As I said, you claimed you'd give to charity to make yourself look good, but when it comes down to actually doing it, like all big mouthed far right cowardly authoritarians, you made sure you had a way to weasel out of it. That's what I said, and you keep agreeing with me, then saying I'm wrong because you can't own up to truths you find inconvenient.
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hell, the entire English language is a corruption, so why you'd try to claim otherwise, is only something a troll like you could answer.

The English language is what it is. That some words have made it in from other languages doesn't prove any word is English. Only a stupid ignorant cowardly weasel of a troll like you could try to claim otherwise.

Again you prove you're a troll and that I'm not, but are so stupid you believe screaming the opposite to reality will fool someone.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 2:57 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


And now I see you've resorted to changing the subject title - again.

cute, misspelling words so as to make it look like whozit did this.

What a complete and utter troll you are, citizen.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 3:11 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And now I see you've resorted to changing the subject title - again.

cute, misspelling words so as to make it look like whozit did this.

What a complete and utter troll you are, citizen.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Just with the last thread, you probably did it yourself.

I proved you wrong with my last post, so now you are desperately trying to frame me again with your actions? Pathetic.

Again you attempt to call me a troll, but only prove it of yourself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 4:10 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


You've never proven me wrong, only proven yourself to be wrong.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You've never proven me wrong, only proven yourself to be wrong.

I've already told you, desperately saying the opposite to reality fools no one but yourself. The fact that you are so consistently proven wrong would make most people re-evaluate the wisdom of getting all their opinions wholesale from a drug addicted radio host, you just shift deeper into your delusion.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 9:46 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Surely it's time for pistols at ten paces, gentlemen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Pistols hell, cannons, double-shotted and loaded with cannister at fifteen.

This neverending ping pong match is gettin OLD, gentlemen.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:04 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You've never proven me wrong, only proven yourself to be wrong.

I've already told you, desperately saying the opposite to reality fools no one but yourself. The fact that you are so consistently proven wrong would make most people re-evaluate the wisdom of getting all their opinions wholesale from a drug addicted radio host, you just shift deeper into your delusion.



To prove one worng, you must offer evidence.

As always, you fail on that, and simply respond w/ petty insults, in parrot like fashion, simply saying the same thing, over and over and over again.

It's pathological, with out question, your obsessive reaction and childish response.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:41 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pistols hell, cannons, double-shotted and loaded with cannister at fifteen.

This neverending ping pong match is gettin OLD, gentlemen.

-F

Point taken. It was getting kinda boring having him repeat back whatever I said to him as if it was new a smart. Like arguing with a two year old.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:18 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Personally, I give blood quite often, as I'm a rare blood type.

And while I don't give to religious charities, I give quite a bit to organizations that are trying to make this a better world.

I suspect that's how the figures get skewed. If the local church organization counts as a donation to charity, but Habitat to Humanity - or the Nature Conservancy, or Planned Parenthood - don't, then it doesn't mater HOW much liberals give. None of it will ever be counted.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!



"A large majority of U.S. citizens donate money each year to houses of worship and charitable organizations."

Yep. That's how the figures get skewed. But then, it's not as if he's an unbiased source as claimed. Arthur C. Brooks visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. And it's not as if Rap is an unbiased poster. He would NEVER post that information.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/whos_more_c
haritable_liberals_or_conservatives

1. Is this because more conservatives go to church, and give money to their church? For example, Mormons (who tend to be conservative), give 10% of their income to one of the wealthiest churches on the face of the planet, and one which does considerably less humanitarian work around than many churches (liberal and conservative) with much less wealth. Most of us wouldn't count everything you give to your church as "giving to charity," so you should ask yourself if the studies Kristof talks about take church giving into account.

And in fact, Kristof notes that "According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."

But maybe that's because conservatives are already giving a big chunk of change to their church (which may really go to substantial charitable work, and not just to the general operating expenses of the church), so there is less money left over to give to non-religious charities. Thus excluding "donations to all religious organizations" may not be a fair comparison either.

2. Are conservatives richer, and thus able to give more to charity? Kristof notes that "measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes," but we're given no information on how giving relates to wealth. When I'm spending 80% of my income on basics like food, housing, and transportation, I have less money to give as a percentage of my income. If I only spend 30% on the basics, I'm free to give a larger chunk to charity.

3. How much is related to say, issues of urban vs. rural environments, instead of liberal/conservative? One claim is "People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often." Is that because there are more volunteer opportunities in smaller towns than in big cities? I grew up outside of the fairly small city of Ithaca, NY. I volunteered for the local fire department there, something I could never do now in St. Louis because the fire department is all professional.

There are obviously more questions to ask, and it's not clear at all, at least from the newspaper story, what we should really believe.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 12:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Point taken. It was getting kinda boring having him repeat back whatever I said to him as if it was new a smart. Like arguing with a two year old.


Which is funny, because that's exactly what you were doing, over and over and over again.

Well, not funny....just sad.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 1:45 AM

CITIZEN


Anyway, ignoring the trolls to get back to the topic:

That's what I was getting at Rue. It does indicate that Conservative families tend to earn less, but that doesn't say what some might like to portray. People living in Rural areas often earn less than people in cities, but that's because the cost of living is higher in cities. Most of my wages currently go on paying my bills, but living in the North of England on the same money I'd have it easy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 2:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I suspect that's how the figures get skewed. If the local church organization counts as a donation to charity, but Habitat to Humanity - or the Nature Conservancy, or Planned Parenthood - don't, then it doesn't mater HOW much liberals give. None of it will ever be counted.


So explain please why a church might report donations and Habitat, et. al. wouldn't. Non-profits pretty much have to report their income to maintain their tax status and impress their donors with their efficiency.

Although on second thought, how would a charity's reports of donations received indicate whether a donor was liberal or conservative?

Since I'm going to the library later today, I'll try to find Mr. Brooks' book and discover his methodology. I'm thinking it'll likely be surveys and such.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 3:11 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pistols hell, cannons, double-shotted and loaded with cannister at fifteen.

This neverending ping pong match is gettin OLD, gentlemen.

-F


But ping-pong is fun! It keeps us distracted from reality while still feeling involved.

Oh, and the preferred nomenclature is "table tennis".



SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 4:13 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


This is a religious thing. Liberals tend to follow a belief based more on Epicureanism, or personal gratification – they tend to believe that government is the solution to these kinds of problems and like most people tend to see government as a separate entity instead of being composed of the population. Therefore these kinds of problems of society are often separated from them. This leads them to give less to charity because they don’t really feel like its their responsibility (it's the "rich" peoples responsibility and the government's responsibility to compel the rich).

Conservatives tend to follow a belief more of a spiritual gratification instead of personal then Liberals do. They do believe in personal freedom, but don’t accept that the government is always the necessarily solution to the degree that Liberals do. Therefore they tend to see charity as more their responsibility then Liberals do. So they give, both to satisfy their belief in spirituality which often compels them to give as well as their need to see themselves as more responsible for society.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 4:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pistols hell, cannons, double-shotted and loaded with cannister at fifteen.

This neverending ping pong match is gettin OLD, gentlemen.

-F


But ping-pong is fun! It keeps us distracted from reality while still feeling involved.

Oh, and the preferred nomenclature is "table tennis".

SergeantX








NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:14 AM

RIPWASH


I was about to say . . . it was getting to the ping-pong cats point again.

I actually get reminded of Monty Python's Argument Clinic . . .

No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!
I'm telling you it is!
...
No, it isn't.

Look, this isn't an argument.
...
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!


Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:24 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I was about to say . . . it was getting to the ping-pong cats point again.

I actually get reminded of Monty Python's Argument Clinic . . .

No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!
I'm telling you it is!
...
No, it isn't.

Look, this isn't an argument.
...
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!


Yeah, and you know where it progresses to from there, doncha? POIN-TED STICKS.



W W J C D ?
What would John Cleese do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:35 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I was about to say . . . it was getting to the ping-pong cats point again.

I actually get reminded of Monty Python's Argument Clinic . . .

No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!
I'm telling you it is!
...
No, it isn't.

Look, this isn't an argument.
...
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!


Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas


No it isn't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 6:19 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL


Yes, it is.




---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 6:27 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL


Anywho.

Most people reveal their donations on their tax forms. They could have used tax forms that were voluntarily shared with the study? All I can tell you is what I've seen first hand. I see more religious people at the food bank donating time and goods. I see more religious people donating household supplies and clothes to shelters. I see more religious people at HFH builds. That is most likely because I grew up in a religious area, but I don't see that same correlation where I am now. Charity is very scarce here (currently a blue state).

The blood thing sounds weird. In my mind that should be more even.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 7:33 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


And then you have people like me - liberal, atheist, not rich but not dirt poor. I moved recently, and took FOUR TRUCKLOADS of stuff to Goodwill. Didn't get a receipt, nor did I ask for one. I give blood, I give plasma - actually, I SELL plasma because they pay you for it, but then I give the money to the local animal shelter or an adoption/rescue service. I donate money to charities, I leave food and drinks over at the "hobo camp" in the forest across the field from my work. I donate damaged/unsold/mislabeled products from my business to charity.

And I never, EVER claim it on my taxes or try to use it to enhance my earnings in any way. I don't admit it to anyone - the only reason I even post it here is because this is anonymous, and it's not like anyone here really knows me.

I never did it because I was interested in money, or in "god" being nicer to me, or because I wanted the gratitude from the people helped, or the fame from the people covering it. I did it because I had something, and others had nothing. It put me out not at all to help them, so I did.

And I guarantee you I'm not alone.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 7:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Since I'm going to the library later today, I'll try to find Mr. Brooks' book and discover his methodology. I'm thinking it'll likely be surveys and such.

"Keep the Shiny side up"


Back with the book. The Appendix lists the sources from which Mr. Brooks obtained much of his data.

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/

The Social Capital Community Benchmark Study.
http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/

The General Social Survey.
http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/

The International Social Survey Program.
http://www.issp.org/

The Arts and Religion Survey.
http://www.cpanda.org/getDDIsummary.xq?studyID=a00082

The Giving USA Survey.
http://www.givingusa.org/

The Maxwell Poll.
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/programs/maxwellpoll.htm

The American National Election Study.
http://www.electionstudies.org/

The Giving and Volunteering in the United States Survey.
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/gv01main.html

The America Gives Survey.
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/Giving/AmericaGivesReport.p
df

Now I just have to read the book.







"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Ain't the money so much as where it goes and how effectively it's used.

Liberals also tend to personally donate time and effort when they can rather than money - and sure, often in causes or projects which are either a bit ridiculous or even counterproductive, but everyone believes in something, right ?

My charity tends to be the personal kind, if I decide to help out, then I help out, in whatever fashion I find most effective, and usually that ain't tax deductible...

Hell, sometimes it's even profitable - paying disposal and recycling costs for out of warranty office and computer equipment is annoying enough that when some nameless goon in a truck offers to "make it go away" for a cut-rate or even free, nobody asks questions, and when that soon-reconditioned equipment winds up in the hands of RAWA, third party political fronts, or other folks who needed it - nobody asks questions on that end neither.

I myself prefer REAL help as opposed to some tax shelter where 96% of the budget goes into administrative costs and the salaries of the berks running it, and a PR campaign, with only a smidgen here and there to keep up the facade.

Scored a largish box of digital cameras this past week we're testing and packing up for RAWA to ship on Wed, matter of fact.
And most of em even seen to have memory cards in em, tho small and outdated ones, but it's something.
http://www.rawa.org/help.htm

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
I did it because I had something, and others had nothing. It put me out not at all to help them, so I did.

And I guarantee you I'm not alone.

Far and away from it, Mikey.

You'd make a damn good Anarchist, cause your outlook on life is damn similar to Kropotkinism.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 10:08 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I myself prefer REAL help as opposed to some tax shelter where 96% of the budget goes into administrative costs and the salaries of the berks running it, and a PR campaign, with only a smidgen here and there to keep up the facade.


I prefer time/manpower donations. If I'm giving money, I always look up the org's records. See how they will use your money.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 10:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ain't the money so much as where it goes and how effectively it's used.

Liberals also tend to personally donate time and effort when they can rather than money - and sure, often in causes or projects which are either a bit ridiculous or even counterproductive, but everyone believes in something, right ?


Per what I've read of Mr. Brooks' book in the little time I've had, Conservatives contribute more money AND time than Liberals. Secular Liberals appear to be at the bottom of both time and money giving, with Secular Conservatives better on both, Religious Liberals better still, and Religious Conservatives best.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 13, 2009 10:51 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


What I’ve seen is that the churches, most of which are very conservative, tend to donate as much time/manpower as money. I'm always finding help from Church groups, but almost none of the liberals I know donate their time. This is another reason why Churches need to be encouraged, because they organize people for charity work, if nothing else.


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Here's data from one of the tables from the book. It's taken from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey.

Since I'm having to type this in, it may be a bit messy and the format is different.

Religious Conservatives

Population % - 19.1
% donating to charity - 91
Average Amount - $2,367
% giving to religious causes - 88
% giving to non-religious causes - 71
% volunteering - 67
# times volunteering - 11.9
% vol. for religious causes - 62
% for non-religious causes - 60

Secular Liberals

Population % - 10.5
% donating to charity - 72
Average Amount - $741
% giving to religious causes - 22
% giving to non-religious causes - 69
% volunteering - 52
# times volunteering - 7.2
% vol. for religious causes - 51
% for non-religious causes - 47

Religious Liberals

Population % - 6.4
% donating to charity - 91
Average Amount - $2,123
% giving to religious causes - 86
% giving to non-religious causes - 72
% volunteering - 67
# times volunteering - 12.6
% vol. for religious causes - 60
% for non-religious causes - 63

Secular Conservatives

Population % - 7.3
% donating to charity - 63
Average Amount - $661
% giving to religious causes - 34
% giving to non-religious causes - 55
% volunteering - 37
# times volunteering - 4.7
% vol. for religious causes - 35
% for non-religious causes - 31

Based on this, it seems religious folk, both Conservative and Liberal, donate more time and money to charity than Secular folk of either stripe. Of course, there are three times as many Religious Conservatives as Religious Liberals, so the conservative contribution is greater overall.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Religious Conservatives
% giving to non-religious causes - 71
Secular Conservatives
% giving to non-religious causes - 55


Secular Liberals
% giving to non-religious causes - 69
Religious Liberals
% giving to non-religious causes - 72

When you take out religious donations, liberals by subgroup give as much, or far more, than conservatives. Or if you average the subgroups 71% liberals to 63% conservatives.

It is confirms my impression that liberals are more cause oriented and more 'liberal' with their money when it comes to their causes - or as I put it - making the world a better place.

I would also dispute that donating to churches counts as donating to charity. Just because something is tax exempt like churches, or non-profit like Kaiser Permanente, doesn't make it a charity. I know too many churches that fund the preacher's lifestyle and lavish church buildings with the donations. Very little goes to charity, if any at all. Church donations are not necessarily charity donations.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:17 - 3 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:05 - 1 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:13 - 7497 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL