PDA

View Full Version : Why do Conservatives Give More Money To Charity than Liberals?



billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 05:08 AM
http://newsbusters.org/node/9323


Preview: ABC's John Stossel Highlights Greater Conservative Charitable Giving

ABC’s John Stossel is well known for his libertarian views and for challenging liberal conventional wisdom. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, Stossel was at it again as he debunked the widely held perception that liberals are more generous in their charitable contributions than conservatives. As part of a 20/20 special airing Wednesday night, Stossel interviewed Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, who conducted a study which found that conservatives, while making slightly less money than liberals, actually contribute more:

John Stossel: "But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. These are the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election."

Arthur Brooks, Who Really Cares, author: "When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about thirty percent more per conservative-headed family than per liberal-headed family. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

Ahhhhhh.....I knew I was a good person who belonged to the right political ideology.

I'm gonna sit back and bathe in this one for a bit.

Come on, my liberal friends, less talk more action.

Help people.

It feels good.
:)

dclary
11-30-2006, 05:13 AM
Looks like stossel heard my recommendation to read this book (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46745)

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 05:20 AM
Looks like stossel heard my recommendation to read this book (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46745)

Yes.

I'm proud of us, Clary.

We're givers.

They can say what they want, but at the end of the day, we're givers.

We care about people.

And we do more than just talk about it.

William Haskins
11-30-2006, 05:21 AM
Why do Conservatives Give More Money to Charity than Liberals?

guilt?

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 05:27 AM
guilt?

lol...whatever puts fannies in the seats.
:)

William Haskins
11-30-2006, 05:29 AM
the AW liberal tourbus must be stuck in traffic, so i'll take a shot. the results take into consideration contributions given to churches, which of course (as we all know) never help the poor.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 05:34 AM
I look forward to watching the full John Stossel report tonight on 20/20 and rendering my final decision on who is more generous when it is concluded.

Good luck to both sides and as always, no wagering.

dclary
11-30-2006, 05:39 AM
On the plus side, Stossel's got a bitchin' porn-stache.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 05:41 AM
Remember when he got slapped by the wrestler?

That was uncalled for.

SpookyWriter
11-30-2006, 05:50 AM
Why do Conservatives Give More Money To Charity than Liberals?

Maybe because they reaped the benefits of plundering the country and now feel charitable. It's not uncommon.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 05:54 AM
Maybe because they reaped the benefits of plundering the country and now feel charitable.

Well, they didn't plunder too well, considering that the people who give more, make less.

SpookyWriter
11-30-2006, 05:58 AM
Well, they didn't plunder too well, considering that the people who give more, make less.Are you so sure of this?

robeiae
11-30-2006, 05:59 AM
Well, they didn't plunder too well, considering that the people who give more, make less.There was something like that in the Bible somewhere, but I'm sure it has no bearing on this discussion...

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 06:01 AM
Are you so sure of this?

Did you read the link or my quote from the link?

I don't make this stuff up.

I just report it and let the people decide.

I do look forward to seeing the entire report on 20/20 and then I'll have a better picture on the question as to "Why do Conservs give more than Libs?"

SpookyWriter
11-30-2006, 06:38 AM
Did you read the link or my quote from the link?Yes, I did and thank you. I had already heard the promo for this and am waiting to see what he has to say.

SpookyWriter
11-30-2006, 09:18 AM
For the record, I wasn't impressed by the coverage or attempt to (vaguely) slam a few rich folks for not giving more to charity. I can't say I blame rich people for their behavior. I can't say that donating tons of money or various (disorganized and ill run organizations) is a cause for celebrating.

I wouldn't want to be on a list of people who contributed the most money. It's brusque and just used as a status symbol or wealth.

Now I do respect the donors who request anonymity and those who watch (manage) how their money is spent.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 09:37 AM
What I learned from this special:

1. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Apparently, it's because liberals believe it's governments job to take care of people so they are slackers when giving their own money away. And that conservatives give more money to charity not including the money they give to churches. And that religion played an important part in the desire to give.

The Red Cross bucket test between San Fran and South Dakota was very telling. Shocking too.

2. Rich people give. Poor people give. The middle class is slacking.

3. I hate Fabian What's His Name.

4. Americans are the most generous people on the planet with both their money and their time.

Thank you.

SpookyWriter
11-30-2006, 09:39 AM
Did we watch the same show?

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 09:45 AM
Did we watch the same show?

I have it taped.

I don't know what show you watched.

20/20 John Stossel Tonight.

Everything I said comes directly from the show. Except the Fabian thing. That opinion came from watching the show.

SpookyWriter
11-30-2006, 09:53 AM
I have it taped.

I don't know what show you watched.

20/20 John Stossel Tonight.

Everything I said comes directly from the show. Except the Fabian thing. That opinion came from watching the show.But did the broadcast come in liberal or conservative? See, America is divided by their respective channeling from whichever mugalistic enterprise district they are within. It's all very on the qt...shhhhh....

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 09:55 AM
But did the broadcast come in liberal or conservative?

The liberal/conservative part was only the first 7-8 minutes. After that it was all the other stuff.

I didn't find it to be slanted one way or the other. It was a pretty factual based report. Not much room for opinion or ideology.

oswann
11-30-2006, 10:33 AM
guilt?

This is probably truer than you think. Not guilt in a way which implies someone has done something wrong and feels like they need to pay but in a way which feels like the world is not made right. Some people have fallen on the right side and without the impression of having worked like a slave (horsemeat aside) make good money and want to share some of it around. I have clients like this who I know give fistfulls of money to different causes without yelling it from the rooftops. I also know people whose ideas are on the left and their wallets seem to be firmly stuck on the right.


Os.

MacAllister
11-30-2006, 12:06 PM
Didn't GW claim that roomful of multimillionaires was his base, a few years ago?

This is easy, Billy. You're overthinking it. There are more rich conservatives than rich liberals. So even though we have the Heinz-Kerrys and the Gates, they're seriously outnumbered. :D

Us poor libs have to roll up our shirt sleeves and donate sweat equity, instead of writing checks.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 12:14 PM
Us poor libs have to roll up our shirt sleeves and donate sweat equity, instead of writing checks.

Billy posted...


John Stossel: "But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. These are the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election."

Arthur Brooks, Who Really Cares, author: "When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about thirty percent more per conservative-headed family than per liberal-headed family. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 12:18 PM
Us poor libs have to roll up our shirt sleeves and donate sweat equity, instead of writing checks.

And...


Stossel: "Conservatives are even eighteen percent more likely to donate blood.

You need to get on the horn with your friends, Mac.

When it comes to charitable donations, blood and time, we're just killing ya.

Let's get your side's act going. Please.

Helping people feels good.

MacAllister
11-30-2006, 12:22 PM
I'll save you a place this weekend, Billy. We can always use help putting sandwiches together.

My point is, really, this is meaningless BS. The only question that matters is "what am I doing to make things better?"

And ultimately, whether I vote a Democrat or Republican or Wild-Hare ticket is no one's business. But how we improve our own communities is everyone's business.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 12:24 PM
I'll save you a place this weekend, Billy. We can always use help putting sandwiches together.

The show and study doesn't say that there aren't charitable liberals. There just aren't as many as charitable conservatives.

:Shrug:

Good luck with the sandwiches.

Buy Roast Beef. People who need sandwiches love Roast Beef.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 12:26 PM
My point is, really, this is meaningless BS. The only question that matters is "what am I doing to make things better?"

It's meaningless to YOU, because it destroys the myth that liberals are more caring, compassionate people.

The data doesn't back that up.

That's why it's important to me and my conservative friends. We are slandered, yet we do more in total for humans according to the data.

That's not meaningless. It's vindication.

Thank you.

MacAllister
11-30-2006, 12:30 PM
yet we do more in total for humans according to the data.
Well, no. The "data" suggests you write bigger checks and give more blood. It's hardly the same thing.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 12:37 PM
Well, no. The "data" suggests you write bigger checks and give more blood. It's hardly the same thing.

I think it is, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm just happy that it's been proven that conservatives give more money to charitable organizations than liberals even while making slightly less money.

I'm proud of my clan.

What can I say?

It's a good day. I feel vindicated as a compassionate conservative.

MacAllister
11-30-2006, 12:42 PM
Don't get too smug just yet, in your vast compassion, Billy.

This is interesting. From Brooks' book, Who Really Cares--the book Stossel is quoting:
(pp. 21-22):

When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]. So there's a wash, there--if you count time as money.






But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000 [citing 2000 SCCBS data], households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

But I found a source that flatly contradicts (http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml) that assertion:

In the 2000, 2002, and 2004 General Social Surveys, which are representative samples of the US, conservative families make $2,500 to $5,600 a year more than liberal families in each one.

The same critic of Brooks' study goes on to point out that the real discrepancy is between conservatives and moderates--and the relatively tiny percentage of actual liberals surveyed (a much smaller sample) actually gave a significantly greater portion of their incomes. But since we got lumped in with centrists, that number gets badly scewed:


This problem comes to a head in Brooks’s probit and regression models analyzing SCCBS data (pp. 192-193). After controlling for a lot of things that you might not want to control for (i.e., being religious or secular), Brooks concludes that “liberals and conservatives are not distinguishable” in whether they have made any donation in the last year. This is literally true, but he fails to note that in the model liberals give significantly more than moderates, if a traditional .05 significance level is used, while conservatives do not differ significantly from moderates. Yet in Table 6, the significance level used as a threshold for identification with an asterisk is .01, not .05, as he uses in some of the other tables. In one table (p. 197), Brooks even reports significance at the .10 level, as well as at the .05 and .01 levels.

Again. I maintain it doesn't matter. I have no investment in whether liberals or conservatives give more. Statistics can be tortured into almost any shape you want to torture them into.

What matters is what we do, individually. Good for the folks giving, regardless of who they are.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 12:48 PM
I maintain it doesn't matter. I have no investment in whether liberals or conservatives give more.

I know it doesn't matter to YOU, because you're in the group that supposedly cares and does more. It matters to me, because I'm in the group that supposedly doesn't.

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=24479


“For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society,” Arthur C. Brooks writes in his book, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,” released in November. “Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their [supposed] callousness in the face of social injustice.”

Brooks is a behavioral economist who was raised in a liberal home, and he writes a regular op-ed column in The Wall Street Journal. At Syracuse, he’s the director of nonprofit studies for the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

In his book, Brooks uses an array of statistical analysis to conclude that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and don’t favor government-funded social services are far more generous than their counterparts, regardless of income.

Also, conservatives are more likely than liberals to donate blood and serve as volunteers, Brooks found.

“It is not the case that these enormous differences are due simply to religious people giving to their churches,” he added. “Religious people are more charitable with all sorts of nonreligious causes as well. ... On average, people of faith give more than 50 percent more money each year to non-church social welfare organizations than secularists do.”

It makes me feel good to be vindicated.

That's not meaningless to me.

Thank you.

billythrilly7th
11-30-2006, 12:54 PM
I'm going to sleep.

And for the first time, in a long time, I will sleep with a completely clear conscious knowing that what I always believed has been proven. That my clan is more generous than the very people who say we are mean and don't care about people in need.

It will be a good, deep, clear minded sleep. I hope you can even fall asleep with this new knowledge. Good luck.

Goodnight.
:D

MacAllister
11-30-2006, 12:54 PM
Billy--all you have to do to be vindicated is write a check. Go tutor a kid in reading. Make some sandwiches.

Really.

Redemption is easier than people think. It just requires positive action.

Bartholomew
11-30-2006, 03:14 PM
charitable conservatives.


No such animal. Sorry.

MacAllister
11-30-2006, 03:20 PM
Bart, I gotta differ with you. There are plenty of deeply conservative folks who care deeply and give generously of both their time and money. I've had the honor of working right alongside some of 'em--and the good they do certainly doesn't deserve to be discounted because of political ideology.

Bartholomew
11-30-2006, 03:43 PM
Bart, I gotta differ with you. There are plenty of deeply conservative folks who care deeply and give generously of both their time and money. I've had the honor of working right alongside some of 'em--and the good they do certainly doesn't deserve to be discounted because of political ideology.

I'll take your word for it.

Just because I've never seen one doesn't mean they can't exist, I suppose.

MattW
11-30-2006, 04:25 PM
Which party supports social aid programs by getting everyone else to pay via higher taxes?

robeiae
11-30-2006, 04:41 PM
This is easy, Billy. You're overthinking it. There are more rich conservatives than rich liberals. So even though we have the Heinz-Kerrys and the Gates, they're seriously outnumbered. :DYes, but on average, rich conservatives are more likely to have actually earned their money from hard work, as opposed to marrying well or being in the right gangster's family tree...

:tongue

robeiae
11-30-2006, 04:44 PM
Statistics can be tortured into almost any shape you want to torture them into.


What matters is what we do, individually. Good for the folks giving, regardless of who they are.Right.

I'm so glad you said the first part. I was gearing up for quite the rant 'til I read that.

MacAllister
11-30-2006, 04:45 PM
Yes, but on average, rich conservatives are more likely to have actually earned their money from hard work, as opposed to marrying well or being in the right gangster's family tree...
Cite, please.

robeiae
11-30-2006, 05:11 PM
Cite, please.Oh, I'm making that up.

However, I think something could be gleaned by doing a breakdown of the wealthy by industry. We could both probably anticipate the results, which would be pretty much a wash at the end of the day. And that's going to be true about any economic class that is sufficiently large, like the "rich" in the U.S.

I daresay all the wealthy people in the Soviet Union had pretty much the same ideological orientation across the board. Of course, there were just a few of them, weren't there? I wonder what we'd find in the socialist republics of Europe...

eldragon
11-30-2006, 05:32 PM
Conservative, liberal, what does it matter?

How much money or time do you donate, Billy?

I can't write many checks, but I donate my time.

aghast
11-30-2006, 05:34 PM
basic economics - tax breaks, plus we all know republicans have all the money in the world. liberals are poor or working class to begin with... but yes like eldragon said many people donate time at the place i volunteer (non partison organization) there is like only one republican - its very clear to us that our money comes from more republicans than democrats (we do live in a red state) but at the same time almost all our volunteers are non republicans - very interesting

dahmnait
11-30-2006, 05:37 PM
Conservative, liberal, what does it matter?

How much money or time do you donateExactly. :D The labels don't matter, the individual does.

Maybe it's just that I am coming at this from a different angle. I could care less about party lines. People tend to get stuck in the ideologies and labels, which limits the ability to move forward.

aghast
11-30-2006, 05:40 PM
It's meaningless to YOU, because it destroys the myth that liberals are more caring, compassionate people.


good f'king gracious - do you only measure caring, compassionate with money? then mother teresa must have been an uncaring biatch and bill gates practically a saint. there are so many diferent ways and not everyone can give money - did they measure gifts, actually time donated, services donated? gimme a break billy - from my own experience those who couldnt afford the time open their wallets and those who couldnt afford the greenbacks offer their time - everyone wins and its just stupid to say one is better than another

aghast
11-30-2006, 05:51 PM
I'm going to sleep.

And for the first time, in a long time, I will sleep with a completely clear conscious knowing that what I always believed has been proven. That my clan is more generous than the very people who say we are mean and don't care about people in need.

you should sleep better knowing personally you have given, either time or money - so how much have you donated billy? either time or money - if not much, you are just blowing hot air

robeiae
11-30-2006, 06:00 PM
good f'king gracious - do you only measure caring, compassionate with money? there are so many diferent ways and not everyone can give money - did they measure gifts, actually time donated, services donated? gimme a break billy - from my own experience those who couldnt afford the time open their wallets and those who couldnt afford the greenbacks offer their time - everyone wins and its just stupid to say one is better than anotherFWIW, I agree with you.

But your first question--"do you only measure caring, compassion with money"--is one answered with a resounding yes by those liberals in government office. And that's truly a shame.

Cav Guy
11-30-2006, 06:01 PM
Cite, please.

I suspect he's talking about the Kennedy clan. Ol' Joe had if memory serves some rather interesting ties.

But I don't care either way. I tend to be deeply suspicious of anyone who defines his or her life based on a political ideology (left or right, liberal or conservative; doesn't matter). It's a little bit too much like having someone do your thinking for you and then being smug about it.

aghast
11-30-2006, 06:04 PM
FWIW, I agree with you.

But your first question--"do you only measure caring, compassion with money"--is one answered with a resounding yes by those liberals in government office. And that's truly a shame.

who? or like someone else said, cite please

robeiae
11-30-2006, 06:14 PM
who? or like someone else said, cite pleaseEasier to cite who not.

How many times have you heard compaints about "cutting" medicare benefits, or welfare benefits? And always, it's framed as the repubs or the conservatives don't care about poor people, or old people, or children. You name it.

Jcomp
11-30-2006, 06:35 PM
Are Mac's points about statistical discrepancies in post #31 bogus? Or are we just completely ignoring all that?

eldragon
11-30-2006, 06:40 PM
good f'king gracious - do you only measure caring, compassionate with money? then mother teresa must have been an uncaring biatch and bill gates practically a saint. there are so many diferent ways and not everyone can give money - did they measure gifts, actually time donated, services donated? gimme a break billy - from my own experience those who couldnt afford the time open their wallets and those who couldnt afford the greenbacks offer their time - everyone wins and its just stupid to say one is better than another


True, but Bill Gates donates ALOT Of money to good causes.

Father Damian, Mother Theresa - they are great examples of selfless giving of themselves.

Unfortunately, however, finances are needed as much as care.

Money for research, daily expenses, medicine, etc. It's all necessary.

Cav Guy
11-30-2006, 06:42 PM
Again. I maintain it doesn't matter. I have no investment in whether liberals or conservatives give more. Statistics can be tortured into almost any shape you want to torture them into.

What matters is what we do, individually. Good for the folks giving, regardless of who they are.

This is the important point of #31, IMO. Statistics and facts are very often a contradiction in terms. You can warp a survey into just about anything you want, just like opinion polls that call the same 200 or so people in the Greater New York City metro area and then claim to represent "all Americans." It's all about spin and surrendering your capacity for reason to talking heads that want you to support their party or cause.

robeiae
11-30-2006, 06:45 PM
Are Mac's points about statistical discrepancies in post #31 bogus? Or are we just completely ignoring all that?I don't know about you, but I'm taking it as a given that there is too much room for manipulation with these kinds of statistics, so I accept neither those cited in this book, nor those cited by Mac. I think she's going this way, too.

Meerkat
11-30-2006, 07:01 PM
An appropriate question at this point might be "how many of us experienced a paradigm shift during this single program?" I for one did, and have been on both sides of the conservative/liberal, rich/poor (former now latter in both) fence. This program puts me on the fence rail for awhile. As for the San Francisco/Iowa comparison, at some point it is the size of a community that encourages alienation or at least anonymity, followed by apathy and rudeness, regardless of ideology or income. I would peg that number at around 40,000-50,000.

Bravo
11-30-2006, 07:19 PM
you should be the anti-clary.

Celia Cyanide
11-30-2006, 07:27 PM
It's meaningless to YOU, because it destroys the myth that liberals are more caring, compassionate people.

The data doesn't back that up.

The data can't back that up, because it doesn't prove "caring" or "compassionate" either way. You're equating donating money and blood with actually caring about people, and you can't measure it that way.

I've volunteered at soup kitchens through my parents' church. Most of the people there didn't seem to care about the people at all. Children were coming up and asking for a second glass of milk, and this grumpy old lady told me not to let them have it. "They keep saying it's for their brother, but they're lying!" The food was there for the sole purpose of feeding hungry people. Children were lying, not to get candy, but a second glass of milk! We struggle to get most children to finish their milk, and all she could do was complain that they wanted more.

I didn't see any compassion or care there. Was it was because they were all from a conservative church? No, probably not. But the point is, people volunteer or donate for different reasons. It isn't always because they care. Sometimes it is. But it's not something you can measure with statistics.

Meerkat
11-30-2006, 07:36 PM
you should be the anti-clary.

Talk about synchronicity: As you wrote this, I was over on the "aliens hate america" thread, reviewing the profile answers both you and Dclary provided. Synchronicity thread, anyone?

aghast
11-30-2006, 07:50 PM
True, but Bill Gates donates ALOT Of money to good causes.

my point exactly but judging from billys standard bill gates is a saint and mother teresa was... she was just bored

dclary
11-30-2006, 08:01 PM
you should be the anti-clary.

The prophecy IS true, then.

Beware the one with the meerkat avatar
lest ye die so very sorry
He is thine bane from a distance afar
Your Hakuna Mata Hari

Jenan Mac
11-30-2006, 08:09 PM
John Stossel: "But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. These are the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election."


So if I contribute a pile o' money to, say, Habitat for Humanity and the ACLU, it gets counted as a conservative donation because Florida was a red state by a narrow margin? That's some pretty impressive statistics-manipulating.

Jenan Mac
11-30-2006, 08:15 PM
Yes, but on average, rich conservatives are more likely to have actually earned their money from hard work, as opposed to marrying well or being in the right gangster's family tree...
:tongue

Remind me again how George HW and Junior made their own money?

dclary
11-30-2006, 08:21 PM
From Nazi gold. Duh.

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 12:37 AM
That was a good sleep.

Good afternoon, AW.

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 12:42 AM
But the point is, people volunteer or donate for different reasons. It isn't always because they care. Sometimes it is. But it's not something you can measure with statistics.

Yeah, I guess you're right, but until god does his own survey of people's minds and publishes that for the world, I guess we'll have to go with the donate time and money method of measuring who cares.

SpookyWriter
12-01-2006, 01:02 AM
That was a good sleep.

Good afternoon, AW.Good afternoon to you, sir.

Celia Cyanide
12-01-2006, 01:06 AM
Yeah, I guess you're right, but until god does his own survey of people's minds and publishes that for the world, I guess we'll have to go with the donate time and money method of measuring who cares.

Why do we have to measure that at all? Is it really necessary?

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 01:08 AM
Why do we have to measure that at all? Is it really necessary?

Yes, it's necessary when one group has continuously demonized another group for not being caring and compassionate.

If one group did not do that, then no, it wouldn't be necessary.

aghast
12-01-2006, 01:12 AM
i think people are 'demonizing' said group not because of what they are or are not giving, but of what they cut and take away - welfare, social services, medicare, afterschool programs, aids fundings and so on - so we can open it up and say its good to cut government spending on social causes and let the private sectors handle it through charities but that itself is a can of worm as well - also do we know where people donate money? giving it to your church and the girl scouts and your sons prep school is different than say giving it to the homeless shelters or aids clinics - thats why we say such statistics based on money figures, alone, is meaningless

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 01:19 AM
giving it to your church and the girl scouts and your sons prep school is different than say giving it to the homeless shelters or aids clinics - thats why we say such statistics based on money figures, alone, is meaningless

Read the entire thread and/or the book and/or watch the 20/20 special.

The giving was across all sectors.


To illustrate what distinguishes those who give from those who don't, "20/20" went to two parts of the county that have two very different populations: Sioux Falls, South Dakota and San Francisco, California. "20/20" asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities - Macy's in San Francisco and Walmart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket gets more money? Sioux Falls is rural and religious, more than half of the population go to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are more liberal, and just 14% of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so will people in San Francisco give more?

The San Franscisco/Sioux Falls Salvation Army bucket test was a debacle for liberals.

Two buckets.

One outside the Macy's in the affluent People's republic of San Francisco and another outside the WalMart in the rural conservative Sioux Falls.

DOUBLE THE MONEY in the Sioux Falls Bucket!

A trouncing!!

Hey...don't shoot the messenger. I have no reason to believe that Syracuse Professor Arthur Brooks has an agenda. This wasn't written by Ann Coulter.

The data is in and there is vindication.

aghast
12-01-2006, 01:42 AM
all it proved was that people who shop at macys dont like to give to salvation army (which by the way is a conservative organization - they have strong antigay policies and that could explain why people in san francisco, the gay mecca, didnt want to give to them) give me salvation army and aids task force and i will drop in the aids bucket every time - that 'test' is so flawed i dont even know where to begin - i am afraid you just want to hear something that validate your own beliefs but this really doesnt have much to stand on

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 01:48 AM
all it proved was that people who shop at macys dont like to give to salvation army (which by the way is a conservative organization - they have strong antigay policies and that could explain why people in san francisco, the gay mecca, didnt want to give to them) give me salvation army and aids task force and i will drop in the aids bucket every time - that 'test' is so flawed i dont even know where to begin

lol...That was just a VERY TELLING throwaway test. That wasn't the "DATA."

Please post all future questions to Arthur Brooks at Syracuse University and John Stossel at ABC.

Conservatives give more. The data is in.

"We're here, we're more giving people, live with it!"

Another liberal myth destroyed.

Try and do better in the future please. Helping people on a personal level feels good. Don't rely on the government to do it for you, liberals.

Reach into your pockets. Volunteer at a homeless shelter. Give blood.

You'll get tremendous benefits out of it as well as I'm sure the more giving liberals, like Mac, can attest to.

aghast
12-01-2006, 01:52 AM
all this liberal this and liberal that is giving me a headache - did you not read anhything others have posted? why all the harping? just say 'people' go and give and stop this liberal label crap and yes i will write to abc because that test and data is crap, absolutely no scientifc value and misleading at best - i am very disappionted in your critical thinking ability

dahmnait
12-01-2006, 01:57 AM
Yes, it's necessary when one group has continuously demonized another group for not being caring and compassionate.
And this is the problem with our political system. It doesn't matter. If the parties would stop pointing fingers and placing blame, they just might be able to get something done. The parties don't matter, the individuals do.

It is a constant back and forth game. Break out of it. I dare you. ;)

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 02:01 AM
all this liberal this and liberal that is giving me a headache - did you not read anhything others have posted? why all the harping? just say 'people' go and give and stop this liberal label crap and yes i will write to abc because that test and data is crap, absolutely no scientifc value and misleading at best - i am very disappionted in your critical thinking ability

A. You apparently don't read the posts where I explained why all the "harping."
B. I didn't write the book. I didn't do the study. There is no critical thinking ability needed for this report. Just simply the ability to read and report. If you have a problem with the study I suggest you take it up with Arthur Brooks at Syracuse University.

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/

C. I understand why you are so upset. Your indentity and the thing that makes liberals feel so good about what wonderful people they are has been completely disproven. I'd feel crappy too if a study came out that said "Liberals want to spend more on the military and national defense than Conservatives!!"

I'd be like "What?! No way!!! That's MY thing!!!"

It would be very frustrating to find out that everything I always believed was not true.

But after my frustration, I'd use the info as a wake up call and a desire to do better.

That's what liberals should be doing in the aftermath of this book and report.

Instead of crying foul, they should be saying, "we need to do better."

engmajor2005
12-01-2006, 02:09 AM
Conservatives donate more money, so they obviously care more about the sick and the poor.

Or, they're more interested in tax write-offs. Or, even though they make less, they have less need for the money and can donate more. And don't even get me started on the whole milarky behind the red state/blue state mentality and why it's not very accurate.

And I'm sorry; money donated to churches shouldn't count. Not that churches never help the poor (there are about oh, one or two out of every fifty that do), but tithing is not charity. It's the religious equivalent of paying your bills.

MacAllister
12-01-2006, 02:10 AM
Rob said:
I don't know about you, but I'm taking it as a given that there is too much room for manipulation with these kinds of statistics, so I accept neither those cited in this book, nor those cited by Mac. I think she's going this way, too.

That's exactly where I'm going. This isn't science. It took about ten seconds of googling to find a legitimate challenge to those numbers--but the variables are much too large.

When someone starts throwing statistics around to say "all liberals are y" or "conservatives are x" it's, well...dumb. It's also, frankly, not much different than saying blacks are (fill in the blank) or women are (fill in the blank).

engmajor2005
12-01-2006, 02:11 AM
Speaking of tax write-offs, did Mr. Moustache investigate how much said cons benefited from their donations...in the form of tax breaks?

Celia Cyanide
12-01-2006, 02:13 AM
Try and do better in the future please. Helping people on a personal level feels good. Don't rely on the government to do it for you, liberals.

Reach into your pockets. Volunteer at a homeless shelter. Give blood.

I don't mean to get cranky, billy, but there is no need to explain this to me, or tell me what I should be doing, just because you found this data. I do a LOT of volunteering in my community. You claim the reason you stated this thread was because you didn't like being demonized for not caring. Well, this data you've posted doesn't give you the right to assume that the liberals around here don't care. I already mentioned volunteering at a homeless shelter in this thread, actually, so I would think you'd know better.

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 02:14 AM
When someone starts throwing statistics around to say "all liberals are y" or "conservatives are x" it's, well...dumb.

Yes I do agree with that 100%.

There are good and bad and everything inbetween across all groups.

When it comes to charitable donations and volunteer work, according to the data, there are a few more good in the conservative group than the liberal group.

That's all.
:D

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 02:16 AM
I don't mean to get cranky, billy, but there is no need to explain this to me, or tell me what I should be doing, just because you found this data. I do a LOT of volunteering in my community. You claim the reason you stated this thread was because you didn't like being demonized for not caring. Well, this data you've posted doesn't give you the right to assume that the liberals around here don't care. I already mentioned volunteering at a homeless shelter in this thread, actually, so I would think you'd know better.

I didn't address that statement to YOU.

It's a general statement to my liberal friends.

Why anyone would get upset at a general statement not directed at them, that they know they didn't fit into is beyond me.

MacAllister
12-01-2006, 02:17 AM
When it comes to charitable donations and volunteer work, according to the data, there are a few more good in the conservative group than the liberal group.Billy, bullshit. According to one, tightly focused, statistically questionable study that quite apparently has an agenda--as most studies do.

You've used that study to deliberately insult people here, over and over. Then you try to skate on taking responsibility for being snotty and insulting.

That's crap behavior, a crap rhetorical device, and I really had thought better of you than that.

My mistake.

billythrilly7th
12-01-2006, 02:20 AM
Billy, bullshit. According to one, tightly focused, statistically questionable study that quite apparently has an agenda--as most studies do.

You've used that study to deliberately insult people here, over and over. Then you try to skate on taking responsibility for being snotty and insulting.

That's crap behavior, a crap rhetorical device, and I really had thought better of you than that.

My mistake.

I disagree.

I'm just reporting on the report.

I believe it's the report you are actually upset with and like I said, I can understand.

If you want to take that out on me, so be it.

:Shrug:

Celia Cyanide
12-01-2006, 02:21 AM
I didn't address that statement to YOU.

It's a general statement to my liberal friends.

Why anyone would get upset at a general statement not directed at them, that they know they didn't fit into is beyond me.

When you address a statement to "liberals," I do fit into that general category.

If I were to say, "conservatives, you should start giving a crap about homeless people," I highly doubt your reaction would be, "Oh, she must not be talking to me, because I do give a crap."

MacAllister
12-01-2006, 02:22 AM
I'm not upset with the report, Billy, because the report is essentially meaningless.

I'm upset at your deliberately obtuse behavior in this thread, and your complete disregard for anything anyone actually has taken the time or energy to post in thoughtful response to you.

I'm upset because you've taken this report as an excuse to act like a dick to people here, and then hide behind it as if it's some sort of get-away-with-bad behavior-free card.

I'm also closing this thread--which, as far as I can tell was not started with any intention of actual open debate or discussion, but rather with the sole intention of giving blanket insult to entire subset of your fellow board members.

Fine. Billy found a book that crunches a whole bunch of numbers to say that Conservatives donate more money than Liberals.