Bleeding heart but tight fist

[shakenbake]

I thought this was funny given all the "I got mine talk"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916_pf.html

Residents of Austin, home of Texas'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's 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's 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's 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 people's money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

[shakenbake]

I guess you libs need so start putting your money where your mouth is. How is it you greedy libs make 6% more but give 30% less to charity ?

and forget money why not just give some blood ?

[Spider]

he must have counted tithing to a church, as Charity ......... someone should look that up ......... or he excluded Warren Buffet and Bill gates ......

[BroncoBuff]

he must have counted tithing to a church, as Charity
Beat me to it ....

Or maybe they cheat on their taxes more?

[Spider]

Beat me to it ....

Or maybe they cheat on their taxes more?

Yeah , it has to be something , most charities are tax deductible........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Beat me to it ....


Me too. :D

[orinjkrush]

I thought this was funny given all the "I got mine talk"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916_pf.html

Residents of Austin, home of Texas'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's 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's 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's 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 people's money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

interesting, and definitely counter intuitive study. some will reject the data since it doesnt square with their predetermined mind sets.

[Spider]

interesting, and definitely counter intuitive study. some will reject the data since it doesnt square with their predetermined mind sets.

But I ask again , did he count tithing to the church as charity ?

[orinjkrush]

you can always question the measures used. and there will always be hidden assumptions in them. but overall, these data don't square with what you might expect from the political diatribes we routinely hear.

[Spider]

you can always question the measures used. and there will always be hidden assumptions in them. but overall, these data don't square with what you might expect from the political diatribes we routinely hear.

thats just it , alot of liberals dont go to church , alot of conservatives do , they tith to the church cause it told they should , buying their way into heaven . is that really charity ?

[Spider]

Let me put it like this , I dont trust religion , I dont trust alot of preachers , take a look at the Oral Roberts scandal , or the 700 club , Ted Haggard ,Pat Robertson ,Obamas preacher, how is tithing to these crack pots charity ?
Last church I was in , they said giving 10% of your weekly income is the right thing to do , to help the church survive ....... that isnt Charity , that is flat out paying taxes to go to church

[shakenbake]

thats just it , alot of liberals dont go to church , alot of conservatives do , they tith to the church cause it told they should , buying their way into heaven . is that really charity ?

While the Church thing is defiantly a viable reason for conservatives giving more, it still doesn't excuse liberals from not giving more to charity when they are making on average 6% more in income. It isn't like there aren't non-secular charities out there to give your money too.

It also doesn't explain why conservitives give more blood and donate more of their time.

[Spider]

While the Church thing is defiantly a viable reason for conservatives giving more, it still doesn't excuse liberals from not giving more to charity when they are making on average 6% more in income. It isn't like there aren't non-secular charities out there to give your money too. thought so ..... you are talking 6% more and including tithing ......case closed

It also doesn't explain why conservitives give more blood and donate more of their time.

and you still wonder why we make 6% more ? try working more hours

[shakenbake]

thought so ..... you are talking 6% more and including tithing ......case closed



and you still wonder why we make 6% more ? try working more hours

right that is it you are just to busy to donate blood

[Spider]

right that is it you are just to busy to donate blood

well , it is like this , me and my brother was lied to , we bobtailed from Casper Wyoming to Savannah Georgia .. costing 1,378.88 per truck in fuel , 150.00 in food for each of us to go down ...... we didnt get what we was promised , in fact we got , sorry we are changing companies to APEX trucking , and we have military accounts coming in , and you have to put tattle tales in your trucks. we told them where to get off ...... so now we are stuck in Ga. 1,900 miles from home , and damn near broke .... we signed on with another company pulling containers spent another 1,500 in fuel and another150.00 for eating , showering , laundry etc , then we paid 400.00 per week for 2 53 foot dry vans ....... all said and done we cleared 850.00 a piece ...... So **** yes we was too damn busy to give blood ...how did your week go ?

[shakenbake]

The other thing I find interesting is that it sounds like the Republicans are no longer the party of the "rich" seeing how liberals are making more an average 6% more

[Dukes]

and you still wonder why we make 6% more ? try working more hours

But when a conservative works more hours he's "Greedy".

Ok I get it now.

[shakenbake]

well , it is like this , me and my brother was lied to , we bobtailed from Casper Wyoming to Savannah Georgia .. costing 1,378.88 per truck in fuel , 150.00 in food for each of us to go down ...... we didnt get what we was promised , in fact we got , sorry we are changing companies to APEX trucking , and we have military accounts coming in , and you have to put tattle tales in your trucks. we told them where to get off ...... so now we are stuck in Ga. 1,900 miles from home , and damn near broke .... we signed on with another company pulling containers spent another 1,500 in fuel and another150.00 for eating , showering , laundry etc , then we paid 400.00 per week for 2 53 foot dry vans ....... all said and done we cleared 850.00 a piece ...... So **** yes we was too damn busy to give blood ...how did your week go ?

that may explain your situation but not the averages

[Spider]

But when a conservative works more hours he's "Greedy".

Ok I get it now.

can you point ot 1 post that says if s republican works more hours he is greedy ? dont confuse hard work with ripping people off

[W*GS]

Obviously, what Spider experiences applies to everyone.

[elsid13]

But I ask again , did he count tithing to the church as charity ?

I have seen this stat before and the study it based upon does include donations to church causes. Not that is bad, since some of the church do really good work for the poor and the disadvantage, but there are others that seem to rather spend monies on themselves.

[shakenbake]

I have seen this stat before and the study it based upon does include donations to church causes. Not that is bad, since some of the church do really good work for the poor and the disadvantage, but there are others that seem to rather spend monies on themselves.

That only makes it look worse for those bleeding heart liberals

[Spider]

Obviously, what Spider experiences applies to everyone.

yo utelling me that I am the only one a church asked money from ? or that I am the only one that has hit bumps in the road making a living ?
you telling me that I am the only one who has had plans fail ?

[shakenbake]

yo utelling me that I am the only one a church asked money from ? or that I am the only one that has hit bumps in the road making a living ?
you telling me that I am the only one who has had plans fail ?

Are you saying that bad things only happen to liberals who on average make more money than conservitives? Because despite the possibility of those things happening to conservitives they still manage to give more than liberals

[Spider]

Are you saying that bad things only happen to liberals who on average make more money than conservitives? Because despite the possibility of those things happening to conservitives they still manage to give more than liberals

boy ..... I thought you had more going on ....... Here is a reading assignment go read the post I quoted from W*GS , then reread my post , then get back to me . if you do a real good job ,see what I can do about getting you a gold star in comprehension skills. oh and you can drop the cons giving more then the Liberals crap..... tithing to a church doesnt count

[shakenbake]

boy ..... I thought you had more going on ....... Here is a reading assignment go read the post I quoted from W*GS , then reread my post , then get back to me . if you do a real good job ,see what I can do about getting you a gold star in comprehension skills. oh and you can drop the cons giving more then the Liberals crap..... tithing to a church doesnt count

Elsid13 said he read the report more in-depth and it didn't include giving to Churches. So there goes that argument.

[Spider]

Elsid13 said he read the report more in-depth and it didn't include giving to Churches. So there goes that argument.

damn dude ...... you really are not doing well are you http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1931154&postcount=21

[epicSocialism4tw]

I have to say, of the major charitable donors that I know, only one is a liberal out of 6 or 7 philanthropists with some sway or cash or both.

The one liberal is an atheist and he gives to a Christian charity because of the noted effect that it has within its community.

[shakenbake]

damn dude ...... you really are not doing well are you http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1931154&postcount=21

you are right I read that wrong. Sorry reading in-between work. Still doesn't change much IMHO. There are plenty of other area's to donate your money too

[Spider]

you are right I read that wrong. Sorry reading in-between work. Still doesn't change much IMHO. There are plenty of other area's to donate your money too

the point is , there are alot more Christians that are right wing then left wing , and when you include tithing , of course right wingers give more ..... for example , I just gave a homeles woman here in Baytown Texas at the TA 20.00 ,claims she is a single mother , needs gas to go to work , I am pretty sure she is lying , but what the hell ..... there will be no record of it , no study , but my pocket book is 20.00 lighter .....but that doesnt help the charity % .. have you gave someone 20.00 today ?

[shakenbake]

the point is , there are alot more Christians that are right wing then left wing , and when you include tithing , of course right wingers give more ..... for example , I just gave a homeles woman here in Baytown Texas at the TA 20.00 ,claims she is a single mother , needs gas to go to work , I am pretty sure she is lying , but what the hell ..... there will be no record of it , no study , but my pocket book is 20.00 lighter .....but that doesnt help the charity % .. have you gave someone 20.00 today ?

No I haven't but I commend you for doing it

[epicSocialism4tw]

the point is , there are alot more Christians that are right wing then left wing , and when you include tithing , of course right wingers give more ..... for example , I just gave a homeles woman here in Baytown Texas at the TA 20.00 ,claims she is a single mother , needs gas to go to work , I am pretty sure she is lying , but what the hell ..... there will be no record of it , no study , but my pocket book is 20.00 lighter .....but that doesnt help the charity % .. have you gave someone 20.00 today ?

Yeah, you got the classic con.

I would be more likely to give 20 bucks to a guy who tells me that he's not going to lie, and that he wants beer. At least some of it would probably put some food in his stomach.

[BABronco]

Ok, so lets take the 10% away from the conservative side. They still have 20% more than liberals. Yes, Christians are spose to tithe but I'd estimate only 70% do. So again, why does the conservative still dominate the liberals in charity? Why do they give more blood? Church doesn't say go out and give 10% of your blood also....

[Spider]

Yeah, you got the classic con.

I would be more likely to give 20 bucks to a guy who tells me that he's not going to lie, and that he wants beer. At least some of it would probably put some food in his stomach.

;D yeah , my Brother called me a fool , but like I told him , I would rather give the money ,and pretend she is telling the truth , then assume she is lying when there is a chance she may not be ...either way she has to sleep with the fact if she is lying or not , my conscience is clear

[Spider]

No I haven't but I commend you for doing it
thanks ... chances`are Iwill get hit up 3 more times between now and dinner

[Spider]

Ok, so lets take the 10% away from the conservative side. They still have 20% more than liberals. Yes, Christians are spose to tithe but I'd estimate only 70% do. So again, why does the conservative still dominate the liberals in charity? Why do they give more blood? Church doesn't say go out and give 10% of your blood also....

LOL so we are supposed to take your estimations as fact ?
why just 10% when 80 present of Americans identify themselfs as Christians ?
Have you been down south here ? the bible belt ? cons out number Libs big time here , go to church , how many of them would you estimate dont tithe ?
why do cons give more blood ? who knows ,but I doubt it is a 6% difference

[BABronco]

LOL so we are supposed to take your estimations as fact ?
why just 10% when 80 present of Americans identify themselfs as Christians ?
Have you been down south here ? the bible belt ? cons out number Libs big time here , go to church , how many of them would you estimate dont tithe ?
why do cons give more blood ? who knows ,but I doubt it is a 6% difference

Of all the churches I've been to, I live in Bartlesville Oklahoma where there are about 100 churches for 35,000, I would guess only 70% give. I collected for a year at my church and only about 25% gave weekly. I'd say in that year another 30% never gave.

As for the 80% of Americans being Christian. It's the typical I'm not a Jew I'm not a Muslim so I must be Christian. So of those 80% how many would you say are going to church every sunday and tithing spider?

[Rohirrim]

I guess we would have to know what these people define as a "charity" wouldn't we? So, if somebody gave money to an organization dedicated to saving the oceans, restoring forests, moving toward better agricultural practices, reducing greenhouse gasses, saving wildlife, ending corruption in politics, saving the rain forests, rehabilitating American river systems, tracking down and prosecuting polluters, cleaning up pollution in neighborhoods, scholarships, restoring wetlands, programs to stimulate medical research or research into the sciences, etc. etc. etc. Those programs might not be classified as charities. Right? Whereas sending fifty bucks to Pat Robertson's 700 Club might be considered a charity. Right?

[Spider]

Of all the churches I've been to, I live in Bartlesville Oklahoma where there are about 100 churches for 35,000, I would guess only 70% give. I collected for a year at my church and only about 25% gave weekly. I'd say in that year another 30% never gave.

As for the 80% of Americans being Christian. It's the typical I'm not a Jew I'm not a Muslim so I must be Christian. So of those 80% how many would you say are going to church every sunday and tithing spider?
I wouldnt assume to pretend I know how much these people are giving , but I guess at least 99.9% throw a little something into the plate at least once a month , therefore counting as giving to charity ....... Nothing was said about how often someone gives in a certain given time

[ScottXray]

Yeah, you got the classic con.

I would be more likely to give 20 bucks to a guy who tells me that he's not going to lie, and that he wants beer. At least some of it would probably put some food in his stomach.

I have done both in the past, although not too many actually say that is what they really want...but lately when I see someone on a street corner I don't tend to believe much of anything on their signs. If they say will work for food I go buy them a big-mac meal and go back and give it to them. I still occasionally hand them a buck or two , when they are on a freeway on-ramp and I can't return.....but realise that it probably won't end up used in the way we'd like to think it does.

Charity has to begin with the thought that ""There,but for the grace of God, go I!" It is becoming much more of a truism these days , than most of us realize. I'd expect we'll see more of them before we see less.
Enabling an unfortunate person to maintain their circumstance is generally what handing them money does. Buy them a burger and you put food in their belly and money in the economy . At least somewhat.

I give steadily to a number of charities, but I get upset with ones that think giving one time means you are to be put on their list for repeated and ever higher requests. Good causes (Amer. Cancer society, MS association, Amer. Diabetes Assoc.) have recently been taken off my lists because of their annoying requests, that keep escalating. I have been giving them an average of over $500 yearly each. I go find others when I get tired of their relentless pursuit of money, and I tell them why they have been stricken out.
Generally they are charities that use Paid service companies to collect funds, and mostly 1/4 to 1/3 of your gifts go to those paid companies.

I find it is best to give to LOCAL charities that are worthy, and there are MANY. Good Will gets all my old goods and clothing...But even they sometimes tick me off.

Recently I took them 3 complete PCs ( in completely functional condition, with OS , monitors, mice and keyboards etc.) but they refused them...because they only want things less than three years old. I then found another local group that was quite happy to get them. I have a huge pile of older electronics that are still perfectly functional. It really isn't worth MUCH...but it is all in excellent condition, and in most cases is in the original packaging. ( I guess I am sort of a pack rat that way...I never throw away the boxes.)

By the way...I am a liberal, by others definitions, I guess. And I guess I'm above the average...both in wages and giving.

I don't attend Church, largely because of their tithing policies...which usually goes to building and or purchasing ever grander church facilities, rather than helping those in need (even within their own congregation).

My brother in law attends an adventist chuch. He has MS and lives on 1200 a month in social security. After paying his Health insurance (which he is lucky enough to have, since medicare won't cover his prescriptions ( they do but the co-pay for his needed ) $450 mo., his rent $210, and his electric (recently at about $75 month) he has about 500 left. That is for Everything. (phone , food, clothing and anything else, including emergencies)
He has been attending this church for > 4 years, the pastor has been to my house and his (since he moved out of here 18 months ago. They full well know the circumstances he is in. They have never offered any kind of help to him , other than an occasional ride to church services. They also recently had the audacity, to request he tithe 10 % to the church! He IS sending them $10 a month (MORE than he can afford). ( and before you criticise...he lived in MY house for SIX years until I could finally get him into a government (section 8) assistance facility. The waiting list was that long.

That is one reason I don't go to church. When I was a child my father joined a Presbyterian church...he was agnostic but felt we should have a Christian upbringing. When the minister came to our house and demanded we tithe 10% (because they had just built a new church and NEEDED the money) my father ( a postal employee, our sole source of income (Mom and 4 kids at home)) threw him out....and we never went to that church (or really any other ) again.

I have gone on too long...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess we would have to know what these people define as a "charity" wouldn't we? So, if somebody gave money to an organization dedicated to saving the oceans, restoring forests, moving toward better agricultural practices, reducing greenhouse gasses, saving wildlife, ending corruption in politics, saving the rain forests, rehabilitating American river systems, tracking down and prosecuting polluters, cleaning up pollution in neighborhoods, scholarships, restoring wetlands, programs to stimulate medical research or research into the sciences, etc. etc. etc. Those programs might not be classified as charities. Right? Whereas sending fifty bucks to Pat Robertson's 700 Club might be considered a charity. Right?

Bingo! :yep:

[goldengopher1976]

Bingo! :yep:

Bingo? Really? Let's set aside the whole "donations to churches shouldn't count" argument, and allow for whatever oversights have been made regarding donations to "non-traditional" endeavors (like those Rohirrim mentioned): my guess is that conservatives--as a whole--still give away more of their money than liberals.

That is to say, that regardless of the motivation, or the destination, shouldn't we be able to address the question of why the principles more closely associated with conservatism lead their adherents to be more giving than the principles associated with liberalism? The assumption on my part, of course, is that giving some portion of our money away--regardless of our motivation or its destination--is a good thing (excluding such causes as the Nazi party, or Islamic Jihad, etc.).

It's easy to make the case that religious folk give more because they are compelled to do so. Or that giving to churches shouldn't count. Or that the giving of many liberals doesn't fall into traditional categories that are readily measured. But none of this quite addresses the basic thrust of this study (and many like it). What I'd like to hear from some of the liberals here, instead of your critiques about the study, is an attempt to address why--as a whole--liberals give less (I ask this fully understanding that several of you have already expressed a propensity toward giving of your own accord). I don't ask the question in an accusatory manner. I have some initial thoughts of my own, but would be curious to hear yours...

[shakenbake]

I guess we would have to know what these people define as a "charity" wouldn't we? So, if somebody gave money to an organization dedicated to saving the oceans, restoring forests, moving toward better agricultural practices, reducing greenhouse gasses, saving wildlife, ending corruption in politics, saving the rain forests, rehabilitating American river systems, tracking down and prosecuting polluters, cleaning up pollution in neighborhoods, scholarships, restoring wetlands, programs to stimulate medical research or research into the sciences, etc. etc. etc. Those programs might not be classified as charities. Right? Whereas sending fifty bucks to Pat Robertson's 700 Club might be considered a charity. Right?

I would imagine that there are charities that contribute to those causes. Why do you assume there wouldn't be ?

[footstepsfrom#27]

But I ask again , did he count tithing to the church as charity ?
Yes.

Church giving or giving to religious organizations constitutes 60% of all charitable giving by living individuals in the US, while giving to social welfare causes amounts to only 2%. The much higher number of middle class (white and conservative) evangelicals who give to churches accounts for the dispartity.

See the Stanford Social Innovation Review: http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/2005WI_Feature_Reich.pdf

[footstepsfrom#27]

Bingo? Really? Let's set aside the whole "donations to churches shouldn't count" argument...
That is to say, that regardless of the motivation, or the destination, shouldn't we be able to address the question of why the principles more closely associated with conservatism lead their adherents to be more giving than the principles associated with liberalism? The assumption on my part, of course, is that giving some portion of our money away--regardless of our motivation or its destination--is a good thing(excluding such causes as the Nazi party, or Islamic Jihad, etc.).
It's easy to make the case that religious folk give more because they are compelled to do so. Or that giving to churches shouldn't count. Or that the giving of many liberals doesn't fall into traditional categories that are readily measured. But none of this quite addresses the basic thrust of this study (and many like it). What I'd like to hear from some of the liberals here, instead of your critiques about the study, is an attempt to address why--as a whole--liberals give less...
If you have seen other studies that show this, and assuming they're not flawed like the Brooks study by factoring in religious giving, please post them.

The Stanford Social Innovation Review study, besides showing that 60% of all giving goes to churches and church organizations, also noted that only 2% goes to social welfare causes (poor people). The US government tax policy subsidizes charity with tax incentives that disproportionately favor the wealthy because they're tied to tax bracket. You can't merely dismiss the holes in the data sampling method and jump to your assumptions here. A huge portion of the data is weighted toward indivisuals who give to institutions that use most of that money for internal rather than external benefit...thus it doesn't meet the criteria of charitable giving. Obviously SOME money given to churches goes to charitable benefit but how much is unknown and unaccounted for in this study.

[goldengopher1976]

If you have seen other studies that show this, and assuming they're not flawed like the Brooks study by factoring in religious giving, please post them.

The Stanford Social Innovation Review study, besides showing that 60% of all giving goes to churches and church organizations, also noted that only 2% goes to social welfare causes (poor people). The US government tax policy subsidizes charity with tax incentives that disproportionately favor the wealthy because they're tied to tax bracket. You can't merely dismiss the holes in the data sampling method and jump to your assumptions here. A huge portion of the data is weighted toward indivisuals who give to institutions that use most of that money for internal rather than external benefit...thus it doesn't meet the criteria of charitable giving. Obviously SOME money given to churches goes to charitable benefit but how much is unknown and unaccounted for in this study.

Okay. I'll back up a step here. The truth is, you obviously know more about the data here than I do.

Is the bigger issue here the idea that money donated to churches that is not used for social welfare causes (or evangelism?) equivalent to country-club dues and should not count as charitable giving (and that when this understanding is applied to the numbers the disparity between conservative and liberal giving disappears)?

EDIT: I wrote before I researched, and all the articles I had in mind were at least loosely based on the same study. I concede to you that there are not other studies available.

[Cito Pelon]

the point is , there are alot more Christians that are right wing then left wing , and when you include tithing , of course right wingers give more ..... for example , I just gave a homeles woman here in Baytown Texas at the TA 20.00 ,claims she is a single mother , needs gas to go to work , I am pretty sure she is lying , but what the hell ..... there will be no record of it , no study , but my pocket book is 20.00 lighter .....but that doesnt help the charity % .. have you gave someone 20.00 today ?

I'm like you, I dish out a pretty good amount of money just walking around on the street or driving at intersections. I can spot the grifters by their hands. I'll give the real hardcases with the dirty hands whatever is on top of my wad. If it's a $20 that's what they get. If the wad has some lower denominations they get what I have until I reach a $20. Hell I don't care what they do with it. Whatever makes their life easier. Makes me feel good and maybe they can get a good breakfast. If they want to spend it on booze, I don't care. I give nothing to the grifters, I can spot them fast.

[Rohirrim]

I would imagine that there are charities that contribute to those causes. Why do you assume there wouldn't be ?

Given that your only purpose for posting this thread is to smear people you don't like, I guess you can "imagine" whatever you want. Somewhat unethical and not very "charitable," but so what?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Is the bigger issue here the idea that money donated to churches that is not used for social welfare causes (or evangelism?) equivalent to country-club dues and should not count as charitable giving (and that when this understanding is applied to the numbers the disparity between conservative and liberal giving disappears)?
That's essentially correct, though the metrics used to measure charitable giving do not fit churches nearly as well as they do other 501 c3 organizations. Nearly alll charities, including churchs, use a portion of their income for internal expenditures such as salaries, facilities, insurance, utilities, etc...however churches present different problems. For example, how would you classify giving to missions? Some is sent to the mission board, if there is one...but money sent to missionaries overseas for their personal support...is that internal or external in nature? In other words, does the "benefit" accrued by the people in...Kenya for example...who hear the gospel message preached in a church operated by an American missionary ...does that qualify as "charitable" contribution? Some would say yes...other no. No acceptable accounting standard exist by which to measure much of what goes on in a church. Money spent on internal expenses does more closely resemble dues to a lodge, country club or membership society, and these are not considered charitable in nature.

EDIT: I wrote before I researched, and all the articles I had in mind were at least loosely based on the same study. I concede to you that there are not other studies available.
Measuring charitable giving at all is extremely difficult, if not impossible. If you're brother in law loses his job and you pay his mortgage for three months...is that "charitable giving"? The IRS says no, but the altruistic intent is no different even though you won't get a tax deduction since he's not a 501 c3 organization. You see the problem...there's no viable way of measuring this effectively.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I guess we would have to know what these people define as a "charity" wouldn't we? So, if somebody gave money to an organization dedicated to saving the oceans, restoring forests, moving toward better agricultural practices, reducing greenhouse gasses, saving wildlife, ending corruption in politics, saving the rain forests, rehabilitating American river systems, tracking down and prosecuting polluters, cleaning up pollution in neighborhoods, scholarships, restoring wetlands, programs to stimulate medical research or research into the sciences, etc. etc. etc. Those programs might not be classified as charities. Right? Whereas sending fifty bucks to Pat Robertson's 700 Club might be considered a charity. Right?
No...all those things you listed would qualify as charitable contributions since they all fall under the umbrella for IRS tax codes for 501c3 organizations.

[Spider]

I'm like you, I dish out a pretty good amount of money just walking around on the street or driving at intersections. I can spot the grifters by their hands. I'll give the real hardcases with the dirty hands whatever is on top of my wad. If it's a $20 that's what they get. If the wad has some lower denominations they get what I have until I reach a $20. Hell I don't care what they do with it. Whatever makes their life easier. Makes me feel good and maybe they can get a good breakfast. If they want to spend it on booze, I don't care. I give nothing to the grifters, I can spot them fast.
;D

[Spider]

Yes.

Church giving or giving to religious organizations constitutes 60% of all charitable giving by living individuals in the US, while giving to social welfare causes amounts to only 2%. The much higher number of middle class (white and conservative) evangelicals who give to churches accounts for the dispartity.

See the Stanford Social Innovation Review: http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/2005WI_Feature_Reich.pdf

I thought so , I am not saying tithing is bad , just noting it as the reason in the difference in charity giving ...... despite the reasons behind tithing , it is still considered charity

[elsid13]

Not to change the subject to much, but one of the things that drove me away for organization charities is the high percentage of donation/givings that go to the charities internal operations. People would be surprised how little actual goes to helping people.

[ElwayMD]

Every not for profit organization has to pay the people who work for it...it's very hard to find any that don't have paid employees. So in reality almost every charity anyone gives to is first paying off the expenses of operation before they get to the charity part of it. I think it would be an interesting study to find out what charitable organizations use the largest % of the money they receive for charity.

[elsid13]

Every not for profit organization has to pay the people who work for it...it's very hard to find any that don't have paid employees. So in reality almost every charity anyone gives to is first paying off the expenses of operation before they get to the charity part of it. I think it would be an interesting study to find out what charitable organizations use the largest % of the money they receive for charity.

i have no problem with paying people, but when you see 60 to 80 % going to admin cost there is problem. Combine Federal Campaign (CFC) provide a booklet that shows that information by charities, I just cannot find it on the web.

[gunns]

he must have counted tithing to a church, as Charity ......... someone should look that up ......... or he excluded Warren Buffet and Bill gates ......

Yes they do count it. Utah was one of the top states in the last few years in giving but it was noted tithing was counted. Of course that's not to say Utahns aren't charitable otherwise.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Every not for profit organization has to pay the people who work for it...it's very hard to find any that don't have paid employees. So in reality almost every charity anyone gives to is first paying off the expenses of operation before they get to the charity part of it. I think it would be an interesting study to find out what charitable organizations use the largest % of the money they receive for charity.
Find everything you're looking fore here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Charity Navigator analyzes non profits with an indiviudal doner base of $500,000 a year or more and if you don't find the one you want submit it to them and they'll do it. You can get CEO's salaries in many cases right on this site, but even if they're not listed you can use the data from Charity Navigator to pull IRS form 990, which does have that information in most cases. Easiest way to get it is here: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder

You can analyze expenditures from the CN financials and see what goes to field operations (charity) and what goes to internal expenses like salaries. Efficiency ratings and even comparisons to other charities doing the same kind of work described in their mission statements will let you see whether you're giving to a solid organization, one in financial trouble or one that looks like a money making scam for the people who run it.

[shakenbake]

No one has yet to explain why conservatives give more blood than their bleeding heart counterparts, or time for that matter.

[Rohirrim]

No one has yet to explain why conservatives give more blood than their bleeding heart counterparts, or time for that matter.

Well, you said the liberals make more money. Maybe it's because the conservatives need to give blood more often to get a couple of bucks so they can get themselves a bottle?

Plus, those libs are out there working their asses off to make all that money. Those conservative get bored just sitting on the porch, sucking down Buds and taking potshots at the livestock all day. Might as well go hang out down at the church bake sale. Maybe they'll be able to get a free lunch?

[yavoon]

I'm absolutely shocked that conservatives who treat charity as an individual moral good would give more than liberals. wait, no I'm not. when democrats say they want to help other ppl, what they mean is they want to take someone else's money and help them.

[BroncoBuff]

Like several have mentioned, organized religions - and conservatives predilection toward active participation therewith - more than explain the gap in giving.

Besides ... I'm a liberal, and I pay membership dues to several social/world betterment organizations every year, though I never deduct the membership dues from my taxes (maybe I should start). Why don't they included non-religious, social betterment groups as charitable giving?

Like most statistics, the labels make them murky ....

[yavoon]

Like several have mentioned, organized religions - and conservatives predilection toward active participation therewith - more than explain the gap in giving.

Besides ... I'm a liberal, and I pay membership dues to several social/world betterment organizations every year, though I never deduct the membership dues from my taxes (maybe I should start). Why don't they included non-religious, social betterment groups as charitable giving?

Like most statistics, the labels make them murky ....

even if the religion convinces them to be more charitable, how is that POSSIBLY bad? it seems to me thats GOOD.

[BroncoBuff]

I never said it was bad ... I just said it explains the difference.

[yavoon]

I never said it was bad ... I just said it explains the difference.

as I read it you were "explaining the difference" so as to eliminate any moral advantage. like handwaving away, "yah who cares, they are bible thumpers." which seems to be consistent which a lot of the rest of this thread.

[footstepsfrom#27]

as I read it you were "explaining the difference" so as to eliminate any moral advantage. like handwaving away, "yah who cares, they are bible thumpers." which seems to be consistent which a lot of the rest of this thread.
It's very simple. Giving to a church does not necessarily mean you're giving to charity.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's very simple. Giving to a church does not necessarily mean you're giving to charity.But it sure sounds good when you say "I support my church". Seems to anyway to some of the older people I know down South.

[footstepsfrom#27]

But it sure sounds good when you say "I support my church". Seems to anyway to some of the older people I know down South.
Nothing wrong with that at all, it's just that the definition of "charity" needs refining. Most people have little or no idea where their money goes after they drop it in the offering plate. I remember growing up in a church as a kid where once a year they had a business meeting to discuss all this stuff after the Wednesday night church service was over. How many people wanted to hang around another 90 minutes on a school night for that? Very few.

The much larger concern is not whethr libs or cons give more to charity...it's why we collectively give so little to the places that need it most, the inner cities where poverty is a vortex few can escape from. If we don't find a way to change what's going on in urbania, our whole society is going to eventually implode.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nothing wrong with that at all, it's just that the definition of "charity" needs refining. Most people have little or no idea where their money goes after they drop it in the offering plate. I remember growing up in a church as a kid where once a year they had a business meeting to discuss all this stuff after the Wednesday night church service was over. How many people wanted to hang around another 90 minutes on a school night for that? Very few.

The much larger concern is not whethr libs or cons give more to charity...it's why we collectively give so little to the places that need it most, the inner cities where poverty is a vortex few can escape from. If we don't find a way to change what's going on in urbania, our whole society is going to eventually implode.And that's it in a nutshell. Americans, in general, seemed poorly informed and educated on many, many subjects.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's very simple. Giving to a church does not necessarily mean you're giving to charity.

I do not see how it is not giving to a charity in nearly all cases.

Money given to a church in most cases is giving with full knowledge that the money will fund the community at large, including operational costs, activities for the church (not only for members), outreach of many different types, and any number of structural needs, etc.

In most cases, tithing goes to needs that have been approved by board members and church elders, so its not like the tithe goes to some nebulus "evil church money eater"...it is approprated according to need. The board is open to all who would be interested to see where the money goes, and a member is welcome to object if they dont think it wise.

The non-religious liberals tend to think that the exception is the rule, when that could not be further from the truth. For every "big money preacher" who is receiving their reward in full here on earth only to find their heavenly reward minimal if anything, there are tens of thousands of churches with honest intentions led by pastors who dont make very much money at all. Bi-vocational pastors have to work other jobs to fund their ministry. There are all sorts of examples of Christian workers who make pennies on the dollar and live in whatever situation they can so that they can continue to follow what they feel is God's commission for them.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I have fond memories of my youth, when I attended what would now be considered a seekers youth group for teenagers. This was outside of the framework of the normal church, and I was grouped with a bunch of other kids like me who didnt quite fit into the church mold.

I have never been one for "big churches", and still am not to this day. I basically went to this church to be with my friends and to play basketball.

Anyhow, my family was very poor and couldnt afford to fund me to be involved in any activities. I never paid a cent in tithe that I can remember. For the few years that I was involved in that church, I was "adopted" by families through their tithing and they paid hundreds of dollars for me to be able to be involved.

Those people invested their money in my future without even knowing me personally. I hope that someday I can see them and tell them how much their selfless giving helped a poor kid become a man and so that they can see that their investment was paid forward.

Mine is the type of story that illustrates what a church is about.

[BroncoBuff]

It's very simple. Giving to a church does not necessarily mean you're giving to charity.
Exactly. I'm a liberal, and I give $50 a year for my ACLU membership, $35 for Amnesty International and a few others totalling maybe $250 ... but I don't use them as deductions. I'm not even sure they qualify. I'm just saying that secular giving - even to charitable/noble causes like these - probably doesn't figure into these stats, and that these causes are VERY disproportionately given to by liberals.

One man's "charity" is another man's cult. I laugh at Pat Robertson, but his givers get tax deductions. They laugh at ACLU, but their givers don't. Personally, I think money given to a televangelist or scientology should cause you a tax PENALTY, not a deduction.

[goldengopher1976]

I have fond memories of my youth, when I attended what would now be considered a seekers youth group for teenagers. This was outside of the framework of the normal church, and I was grouped with a bunch of other kids like me who didnt quite fit into the church mold.

I have never been one for "big churches", and still am not to this day. I basically went to this church to be with my friends and to play basketball.

Anyhow, my family was very poor and couldnt afford to fund me to be involved in any activities. I never paid a cent in tithe that I can remember. For the few years that I was involved in that church, I was "adopted" by families through their tithing and they paid hundreds of dollars for me to be able to be involved.

Those people invested their money in my future without even knowing me personally. I hope that someday I can see them and tell them how much their selfless giving helped a poor kid become a man and so that they can see that their investment was paid forward.

Mine is the type of story that illustrates what a church is about.

Well said. You have nicely articulated at least one of the ways church giving can be justified as charity.

To that end, I see two liberal responses to this thread: 1. Church giving is nebulous at best, and if we at least accounted for operational costs related to the giving, the disparity between libs and cons would disappear; and 2. Church giving is stupid because it is giving that is motivated by religious compulsion.

I get the responses associated with the first response. Those associated with the second probably explain the disparity in blood and time...

[Breaker]

;D yeah , my Brother called me a fool , but like I told him , I would rather give the money ,and pretend she is telling the truth , then assume she is lying when there is a chance she may not be ...either way she has to sleep with the fact if she is lying or not , my conscience is clear

Or she found five more people like you and is now enjoying a drug and alcohol bender. How is it responsible to give this person money and just assume that they are going to use it well, if you wanted to do the charity thing go BUY her lunch instead of just assuming that she is going to use it for what she said she is going to.

[shakenbake]

Exactly. I'm a liberal, and I give $50 a year for my ACLU membership, $35 for Amnesty International and a few others totalling maybe $250 ... but I don't use them as deductions. I'm not even sure they qualify. I'm just saying that secular giving - even to charitable/noble causes like these - probably doesn't figure into these stats, and that these causes are VERY disproportionately given to by liberals.

One man's "charity" is another man's cult. I laugh at Pat Robertson, but his givers get tax deductions. They laugh at ACLU, but their givers don't. Personally, I think money given to a televangelist or scientology should cause you a tax PENALTY, not a deduction.

Wow, $250 for a lawyer you should be given a plaque or something.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's very simple. Giving to a church does not necessarily mean you're giving to charity.

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2004/04/gallery/scandals/jhahn.jpg
http://jessicahahn.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/cropped-jessica-hahn-playboy.jpg

[footstepsfrom#27]

I do not see how it is not giving to a charity in nearly all cases.
This is a philosophical rather than a legal argument. Legally, if you're giving to a church registered as a 501 c3 organization under IRS tax regulations you're giving to a non profit organization...what most people associate with "charity". But that fact subverts the nature of the discussion, relegating the identification of "charity" to one of taxation status instead of mission. Let's move this question to a somewhat different vantage point. Would you say that the money given to support Mormon missionaries who ride bikes or walk door to door trying to convert people to Mormonism is "charity"? I hope not. The reason relgious activity that focuses on spiritual benefit cannot properly be called "charity" is because we live in a society where we cannot agree on what constitues spiritulity, let alone spiritual truth or for that matter, what kind of spiritual activities are beneficial. We can all agree that feeding hungry people, housing the homeless, teaching illiterate people to read, helping handicapped children, providing counseling to unwed teenage mothers or rehabilitating drug addicts provides tangible and blanket benefical contributions to society however. The difference is...one is measurable and one is not. This distinction BTW...also addresses one of the primary concerns that foundations look for when they provide grant funding...ie; can you justify money spent on the basis of measurable impact? How do you measure the impact of that uplifing feeling you get from hearing the choir perform? You can't.
Money given to a church in most cases is giving with full knowledge that the money will fund the community at large, including operational costs, activities for the church (not only for members), outreach of many different types, and any number of structural needs, etc.
The largest expenditures churches have are not oriented towards the community at large, but are operational...salaries, facilities, mortgage and rents, utilities, insurance, pensions, etc...and as I said, most of this goes to create intanbible benefits that cannot be measured or quantified. Does that necessarily mean they aren't valuable? No...just that their value does not fall under the umbrella of things that charities traditionally are concerned with.
In most cases, tithing goes to needs that have been approved by board members and church elders, so its not like the tithe goes to some nebulus "evil church money eater"...it is approprated according to need. The board is open to all who would be interested to see where the money goes, and a member is welcome to object if they dont think it wise.
I'm not referencing intelligent use of resources, or even graft or corruption here. I'm talking about the nature of a church's mission statement, which in the vast majority of cases cannot possibly aptly describe the true activity of the church. Most NPO's can easily be examined by the IRS to see if they're spending money on what they say they are. Not so with churches, where the spiritual and the physical often intersect. Doners to most NPO's can readily identify where money is spent and quantify results. Measuring impact in a church is a murkier proposition.
For every "big money preacher" who is receiving their reward in full here on earth only to find their heavenly reward minimal if anything, there are tens of thousands of churches with honest intentions led by pastors who dont make very much money at all. Bi-vocational pastors have to work other jobs to fund their ministry. There are all sorts of examples of Christian workers who make pennies on the dollar and live in whatever situation they can so that they can continue to follow what they feel is God's commission for them.
True enough...but this has nothing to do with whether the majority of church related activity is "charity" or not. It's a fact that giving to the poor remains the least funded, most neglected activity done by private doners in the US. Church related giving is 30 times higher, and with some exceptions, suburban churches give a proportionatly much lower amount to inner city work.

Churches often do better charitable work than "real" charities and they frequently host "real" charities inside their structural business model. They're often more efficient, better at mobilizing resources, more consistently engaged and provide a powerful alternative to traditional dedicated 501c3's but much of their activity is beyond the vale when it comes to considering what they do and whether it's tangibly beneficial to society or not.

[Spider]

Or she found five more people like you and is now enjoying a drug and alcohol bender. How is it responsible to give this person money and just assume that they are going to use it well, if you wanted to do the charity thing go BUY her lunch instead of just assuming that she is going to use it for what she said she is going to.

first off dont ever tell me what in the **** I can or cant do with the money I work my ass off for ..... thats steppin over the line ........ Secondly , I am not her keeper , she is free to spend the money on whatever she wants , I dont run her life , it was my choice to giver her the money , now it is her choice what she does with it ...... I am far to busy to be baby sitting strangers , or walkin in buying them lunch ...... why is it you republicans want to micromanage everyones lives ? from gay sex in the bedroom between 2 consenting adults , to what some guy decides to do with 20.00 .......

[goldengopher1976]

first off dont ever tell me what in the **** I can or cant do with the money I work my ass off for ..... thats steppin over the line ........ Secondly , I am not her keeper , she is free to spend the money on whatever she wants , I dont run her life , it was my choice to giver her the money , now it is her choice what she does with it ...... I am far to busy to be baby sitting strangers , or walkin in buying them lunch ...... why is it you republicans want to micromanage everyones lives ? from gay sex in the bedroom between 2 consenting adults , to what some guy decides to do with 20.00 .......

Tell us how you really feel Spider! :rofl:

[Spider]

Tell us how you really feel Spider! :rofl:

LOL be thankfull I posted the edited version ......

[BroncoBuff]

as I read it you were "explaining the difference" so as to eliminate any moral advantage.
Moral advantage?!

The entire point of my post is that "moral advantage" is a skewed label, because religions are automatically labelled "moral," whether I/we agree or not. "Moral" is completely subjective .... I'd give millions to ACLU or Amnesty International before Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson or even the Catholic Church gets a nickel from me. MY IDEA of a "moral advantage" is these organizations and others like them - NOT Scientology or Christian mega-churches.

[yavoon]

Moral advantage?!

The entire point of my post is that "moral advantage" is a skewed label, because religions are automatically labelled "moral," whether I/we agree or not. "Moral" is completely subjective .... I'd give millions to ACLU or Amnesty International before Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson or even the Catholic Church gets a nickel from me. MY IDEA of a "moral advantage" is these organizations and others like them - NOT Scientology or Christian mega-churches.

the intent is the same. they aren't buying ipods. it is charity. liberals give less. and the only ppl you'll convince otherwise are ppl who hate churches.

[goldengopher1976]

Heard something interesting on the radio and checked for a story...there was an experiment conducted to anecdotally test the findings of the study. Here is a little bit of the story:

"So, ABC stationed Salvation Army kettles and bell ringers in historically busy spots in both locations—one kettle in front of a Macy’s department store in San Francisco; the other, a Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls—and turned the cameras on. Brooks felt a few butterflies.

“I thought, ‘This could be embarrassing,’’’ he says. The “test” wasn’t very scientific and the wrong results could easily skew public perception of his book. Would the data hold up?

He needn’t have worried. “Turns out twice as many people passed the kettle in San Francisco and [the ringers] got half as much money,” Brooks says."


Responses?


Rest of the article here:http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/perspective/Spr07_charity.asp

[footstepsfrom#27]

Heard something interesting on the radio and checked for a story...there was an experiment conducted to anecdotally test the findings of the study. Here is a little bit of the story:

"So, ABC stationed Salvation Army kettles and bell ringers in historically busy spots in both locations—one kettle in front of a Macy’s department store in San Francisco; the other, a Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls—and turned the cameras on. Brooks felt a few butterflies.

“I thought, ‘This could be embarrassing,’’’ he says. The “test” wasn’t very scientific and the wrong results could easily skew public perception of his book. Would the data hold up?

He needn’t have worried. “Turns out twice as many people passed the kettle in San Francisco and [the ringers] got half as much money,” Brooks says."


Responses?
Gay people are stingy? ???

Seriously...a "study" that silly deserves a response no better than that.

[BroncoBuff]

the intent is the same. they aren't buying ipods. it is charity. liberals give less. and the only ppl you'll convince otherwise are ppl who hate churches.
Doesn't seem like you're getting my point at all ... I'll try again:

It's the definition of charity, and the skewed place within that definition that religion takes that I'm questioning. I and a great many liberals I'm certain give to organizations we view as perfectly appropriate charities, ACLU, Amnesty Int'l, Greenpeace, etc. BUT - these are not all defined as "charitable organizations" by the IRS, and thus they are not reflected in the numbers quoted from Brooks' data.

We DO know conservatives give more to IRS-recognized charitable organizations, but we do NOT know whether than difference would hold up were these other organizations counted as such ... it probably would, as 30% is a big gap, but the reality is that one man's "charity," regardless whether the IRS agrees with him or not, is another man's charlatan ... Scientology, televangelists, Jeremiah Wright, Pat Robertson ... these are not charities in my view.


BTW, this is not MY point really (except the specific mentions of ACLU, Amnesty, Greenpeace). Robert Reich made the same point to George Will on "This Week with George Stephanopoulus" three days ago and Will agreed that religions of "all stripe" as he put it, more comfortably fit into the category of charity, and he asked Reich, "where do we draw the line?"

I'd like to know what the % difference is between libs/cons on regular curch attendance. I'll bet there's a corolation between the numbers.

[Spider]

Doesn't seem like you're getting my point at all ... I'll try again:

.

dealing with Yavbitch is like dealing with a mule .... you have to hit him hard with a 2x4 to get anything to sink in

[Crushaholic]

How do we know that conservatives donate more blood than liberals? I've NEVER been quizzed on my party affiliation when I donate blood.

[goldengopher1976]

Gay people are stingy? ???

Seriously...a "study" that silly deserves a response no better than that.

C'mon man, I fear that in your quest to be intellectually critical about this issue, you are completely unwilling to consider that there may be some merit to it. I didn't post that as if it represented some kind of cheesy checkmate in this debate, but it is nonetheless an interesting anecdotal verification of the findings.

I do not continue posting in this thread because I want to be right about something. In fact, if you notice, I am consistently ending my posts with questions (and I can assure you, I do not ask them rhetorically in some attempt to prove the point). I continue posting because despite all the critical analysis related to charitable giving and the parameters of the study that sparked this debate, an unscientific experiment like the one carried out by the Salvation Army reinforces the initial conclusions.

It seems to me that whether we like it or not, this debate does in fact come back to the fact that in general (and with all due respect to the "liberals" here who are actively charitable, both formally and informally) those who self-identify as conservatives give more than those who self-identify as liberals. As unscientific as it is, the article provides the following analysis for why this is:

When called, a South Dakotan said that South Dakotans were charitable because--whether they still went to church or not--they'd been taught as children to tithe. Similarly, when called, a San Franciscan said (in response to the smaller amount of charitable giving) that it had to do with the "godlessness" of San Franciscans (and by extension, of many self-identified liberals).

I know we've gone round and round in this ongoing discussion about the role and validity of the religious underpinnings related to charitable giving, and I realize that the general implications don't apply to many of the posters here. However, we must recognize the correlation between religious affiliation/faith commitments and giving, and recognize that whether we like or agree with the correlation (and the correlation between religion and self-identifying conservatives) it is a significant factor that must be accounted for.

[yavoon]

Doesn't seem like you're getting my point at all ... I'll try again:

It's the definition of charity, and the skewed place within that definition that religion takes that I'm questioning. I and a great many liberals I'm certain give to organizations we view as perfectly appropriate charities, ACLU, Amnesty Int'l, Greenpeace, etc. BUT - these are not all defined as "charitable organizations" by the IRS, and thus they are not reflected in the numbers quoted from Brooks' data.

We DO know conservatives give more to IRS-recognized charitable organizations, but we do NOT know whether than difference would hold up were these other organizations counted as such ... it probably would, as 30% is a big gap, but the reality is that one man's "charity," regardless whether the IRS agrees with him or not, is another man's charlatan ... Scientology, televangelists, Jeremiah Wright, Pat Robertson ... these are not charities in my view.


BTW, this is not MY point really (except the specific mentions of ACLU, Amnesty, Greenpeace). Robert Reich made the same point to George Will on "This Week with George Stephanopoulus" three days ago and Will agreed that religions of "all stripe" as he put it, more comfortably fit into the category of charity, and he asked Reich, "where do we draw the line?"

I'd like to know what the % difference is between libs/cons on regular curch attendance. I'll bet there's a corolation between the numbers.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/13/13124/4767

"Last July, H. Guy Di Stefano, 90, a resident of Issaquah, Wash., passed away, leaving about $264 million to be divided equally between eight charitable organizations in his last will and testament. Among them was "Greenpeace International," which in 2005 was absorbed into the Greenpeace Fund. Now, the western division of fellow beneficiary the Salvation Army is challenging Greenpeace's claim to the cash, arguing that it isn't exactly the same organization, and that a mere affiliate shouldn't be able to take home the $33 million in question.

The Salvation Army argues that Greenpeace's chunk of the change should be split among the other seven charities -- the Salvation Army, Direct Relief International, the Santa Barbara Hospice Foundation, the Santa Barbara Visiting Nurse Association, the American Humane Society, the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust, and the World Wildlife Fund."

oops.

http://www.publicinterestwatch.org/press_9_12_03.htm

"A non-profit watchdog group today filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Greenpeace, accusing the organization of illegally soliciting and transferring millions of dollars in tax-deductible contributions."

the fail in your argument is staggering.

[shakenbake]

How do we know that conservatives donate more blood than liberals? I've NEVER been quizzed on my party affiliation when I donate blood.

I have never been polled by gallup but somehow they seem to come up with fairly accurate #'s

[footstepsfrom#27]

C'mon man, I fear that in your quest to be intellectually critical about this issue, you are completely unwilling to consider that there may be some merit to it.
Actually I'm more interested in pointing out the fact nobody in here has probably even read this book, let alone had access to the data used to write it. It drives me nuts when people start pontificating about stuff they've never seen.
I continue posting because despite all the critical analysis related to charitable giving and the parameters of the study that sparked this debate, an unscientific experiment like the one carried out by the Salvation Army reinforces the initial conclusions.
The only way we can know if the conclusions are accurate or not is to independently analyze the data. Since we don't even have the data, it's impossible to know whether anything's been reinforced or not. Second, if I had a nickel for every time a research study is contradicted by the next one to come along, I'd be lying on a beach in Maui right now.
It seems to me that whether we like it or not, this debate does in fact come back to the fact that in general (and with all due respect to the "liberals" here who are actively charitable, both formally and informally) those who self-identify as conservatives give more than those who self-identify as liberals.
It's not a "fact" at all...at least we don't know if it is at this point. I haven't even seen the data, nor read the book, yet with a single observation, I've already raised a major question about the validity of this conclusion just by asking whether or not giving to churches was counted as charity in the study. I didn't pull this question from thin air. It's distilled from Stanford University Professor Rob Reich's analysis of charitable giving and the disincentives built into the system by a tax code that ties deductions to the tax bracket of the giver. I have other questions as well but this forum isn't the kind of venue they can be addressed in.
When called, a South Dakotan said that South Dakotans were charitable because--whether they still went to church or not--they'd been taught as children to tithe. Similarly, when called, a San Franciscan said (in response to the smaller amount of charitable giving) that it had to do with the "godlessness" of San Franciscans (and by extension, of many self-identified liberals).
As an evangelical, I find this bizarre characterization of liberals by the conservative wing of the church as "godless" to be utter nonsense and a horrible testimony to the world at large. It's built on the spurious notion that God is interested in morality only as it touches the approved "list" that conservataives use to fuel their agenda. Issues of social concern are conveniently factored out, as if Jesus never spoke concerning the poor and downtrodden of society. Strange to say the least.
However, we must recognize the correlation between religious affiliation/faith commitments and giving, and recognize that whether we like or agree with the correlation (and the correlation between religion and self-identifying conservatives) it is a significant factor that must be accounted for.
I already stated that correlation and don't dispute it. But I'm not arguing whether conservatives "give more" (though I MIGHT argue the validity of that statement if I saw the data and got to take a look at the research methology used in the study). I'm arguing about what they give more to. Much of what they give more to, is not charity despite the fact that it's allowed the same privileges as charity.

You can't test a theory, let alone prove it...with an unscientific stunt, let alone one in which we don't even know if the conclusions are based on solid research or not. And you certainly can't do so with a singlular event only loosely tied to the conclusions.

How 'bout those libertarians...do they give to charity?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Evidently I'm not the only one skeptical of the findings of this study:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t89918.html

[goldengopher1976]

Actually I'm more interested in pointing out the fact nobody in here has probably even read this book, let alone had access to the data used to write it. It drives me nuts when people start pontificating about stuff they've never seen.

The only way we can know if the conclusions are accurate or not is to independently analyze the data. Since we don't even have the data, it's impossible to know whether anything's been reinforced or not. Second, if I had a nickel for every time a research study is contradicted by the next one to come along, I'd be lying on a beach in Maui right now.

It's not a "fact" at all...at least we don't know if it is at this point. I haven't even seen the data, nor read the book, yet with a single observation, I've already raised a major question about the validity of this conclusion just by asking whether or not giving to churches was counted as charity in the study. I didn't pull this question from thin air. It's distilled from Stanford University Professor Rob Reich's analysis of charitable giving and the disincentives built into the system by a tax code that ties deductions to the tax bracket of the giver. I have other questions as well but this forum isn't the kind of venue they can be addressed in.

As an evangelical, I find this bizarre characterization of liberals by the conservative wing of the church as "godless" to be utter nonsense and a horrible testimony to the world at large. It's built on the spurious notion that God is interested in morality only as it touches the approved "list" that conservataives use to fuel their agenda. Issues of social concern are conveniently factored out, as if Jesus never spoke concerning the poor and downtrodden of society. Strange to say the least.

I already stated that correlation and don't dispute it. But I'm not arguing whether conservatives "give more" (though I MIGHT argue the validity of that statement if I saw the data and got to take a look at the research methology used in the study). I'm arguing about what they give more to. Much of what they give more to, is not charity despite the fact that it's allowed the same privileges as charity.

You can't test a theory, let alone prove it...with an unscientific stunt, let alone one in which we don't even know if the conclusions are based on solid research or not. And you certainly can't do so with a singlular event only loosely tied to the conclusions.

How 'bout those libertarians...do they give to charity?

You are nothing if not thorough my friend. Here's to hoping that this study will spark similar ones that attempt to take into account the kinds of critiques you and others have articulated. I've enjoyed the discussion.

[footstepsfrom#27]

You are nothing if not thorough my friend. Here's to hoping that this study will spark similar ones that attempt to take into account the kinds of critiques you and others have articulated. I've enjoyed the discussion.
Likewise! :thumbs:

[loborugger]

I have stayed outta this fray. I figure I have known folks from the left and the right that are tight fisted. I have also known those from the left and right that gave freely of their time and money.

Tonight, I suggest you give until it hurts.

As I speak, my wife is holding an orphan. She is here at our house with some kids (my daughter being one) who spend time at the orphanage. We guess by here size she is 3 years old. She has lived at an orphanage here in Bolivia for the last 6 months. Before that, she was a feral child - she lived on the streets. God only knows what she has put in her mouth as food and what she has covered herself with in the name of warmth. If she has parents, God only knows how they are.

I say this... if you have internet, are an American, then you have it better than most of the people on the planet.

There are a ton in the world that have it worse than we do folks.

Seeing this tonight is heartbreaking, and I aint a touchy-feely guy.

[BroncoBuff]

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/13/13124/4767

"Last July, H. Guy Di Stefano, 90, a resident of Issaquah, Wash., passed away, leaving about $264 million to be divided equally between eight charitable organizations in his last will and testament. Among them was "Greenpeace International," which in 2005 was absorbed into the Greenpeace Fund. Now, the western division of fellow beneficiary the Salvation Army is challenging Greenpeace's claim to the cash, arguing that it isn't exactly the same organization, and that a mere affiliate shouldn't be able to take home the $33 million in question.

The Salvation Army argues that Greenpeace's chunk of the change should be split among the other seven charities -- the Salvation Army, Direct Relief International, the Santa Barbara Hospice Foundation, the Santa Barbara Visiting Nurse Association, the American Humane Society, the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust, and the World Wildlife Fund."

oops.

http://www.publicinterestwatch.org/press_9_12_03.htm

"A non-profit watchdog group today filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Greenpeace, accusing the organization of illegally soliciting and transferring millions of dollars in tax-deductible contributions."

the fail in your argument is staggering.
The fail in my argument in staggering?

You posted all that just to point out that Greenpeace qualifies as a charitable organization? Okay - but I've never deducted my membership dues with them, Amnesty, ACLU, etc ... from my taxes. That was my point - if you'd read my posts - that most "charities" associated with liberals are less amenable to the classic charity profile. Namely, religion. I was pointing out that non-traditional chartable organizations like these are far less likely to show up on 1040s than are churches - and that this may explain some of the gap.

NOW do you get it?


George Will does not explain in his column how this data was gathered, but I just realized it can't be from the IRS, because taxpayers don't check an 'L' or a 'C' box on tax returns. So I'm still skeptical ... the gap may in fact exist, probably does. But I still contend that the non-traditional profile of most liberal charities (as opposed to churches) makes such giving an under-reported number, and thus a statistical abberation on the thesis of that book.

I'll tell you another abberation: Mormons. Mormons give by far the largest portions of income to charity. They live by a strict tithing code, and members' compliance or non-compliance is often made public by Mormon churches according to '60 Minutes' a few years ago. We all know Utah is nearly the reddest of red states ... so right there you have a statistical abberation. Again, not enough to explain the difference, but an abberation nonetheless.

Until I know how that data was gathered, I'm still suspicious. I just put "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" on hold at SPL. I'm #9 on the list ... if anybody cares, I'll report back.

[Breaker]

first off dont ever tell me what in the **** I can or cant do with the money I work my ass off for ..... thats steppin over the line ........ Secondly , I am not her keeper , she is free to spend the money on whatever she wants , I dont run her life , it was my choice to giver her the money , now it is her choice what she does with it ...... I am far to busy to be baby sitting strangers , or walkin in buying them lunch ...... why is it you republicans want to micromanage everyones lives ? from gay sex in the bedroom between 2 consenting adults , to what some guy decides to do with 20.00 .......

If you are so pissed off about me telling you what to do with $20.00 then why are you ok with the federal government telling you that you have to pay 6.2 percent of your paycheck to fund other peoples lives. You libs scream about helping people but then stick you head in the sand when it comes to your own impact upon those people. You would rather give her $20 and let her spend it on drugs or alcohol, pat yourself on the back that you did something nice than to actually spend the time to take her to have a nice dinner and maybe talk to her. Yea you are a real humanitarian you punk.

I also find it funny that any lib would say something about having the government controlling peoples lives when they are the advocates of socialized medicine, increased taxes on specific people, and all those wonderful social programs that never end.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you are so pissed off about me telling you what to do with $20.00 then why are you ok with the federal government telling you that you have to pay 6.2 percent of your paycheck to fund other peoples lives.

ROFL!

This from a right-wing Kool-Aid guzzler who doesn't utter a word of protest when sums of tax money that make the so-called "entitlement" programs he rails against look like chump change are transferred to the coffers of Bush's war profiteering and oil buddies?

That would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. :oyvey:

Like most right-wingers, Breaker obviously believes in private enterprise for poor and working people and socialism/welfare for big corporations.

[Spider]

If you are so pissed off about me telling you what to do with $20.00 then why are you ok with the federal government telling you that you have to pay 6.2 percent of your paycheck to fund other peoples lives. it is all part of being a part of Society , besides I dont have ot deal with them .....


You libs scream about helping people but then stick you head in the sand when it comes to your own impact upon those people. You would rather give her $20 and let her spend it on drugs or alcohol, pat yourself on the back that you did something nice than to actually spend the time to take her to have a nice dinner and maybe talk to her. Yea you are a real humanitarian you punk. Yeah it is called free will , they are old enough to make their own choices , they dont need no hand holding from me , or guidance.I got your punk hanging Bitch . want some ? just say so , I will deliver........

I also find it funny that any lib would say something about having the government controlling peoples lives when they are the advocates of socialized medicine, increased taxes on specific people, and all those wonderful social programs that never end.

you are an Idiot , welfare for bailing out companies , but piss all over people .... Like I said , you have obviously worked hard at being stupid .......... it shows