Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals. . .So. . . (1 Viewer)

[AlbqOwl]

Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous

BY FRANK BRIEADDY
c.2006 Newhouse News Service

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income. . . .

More here: Newhouse A1

Given these facts, where do you think our elected officials should place their initiatives and votes?

1) Government should create a climate that encourages private charity to provide social programs even if such charities are faith based and this will increase resources available to those who need them. Government should not be in the business of social charity.

2) Government, not private charities, should provide the social safety net for its citizens.

3) I am somewhere between these two extremes.

Please explain your position.

 

[Donkey1499]

I was about to post a thread on this, but per usual, Albqowl is one step ahead of me again. :mrgreen:

Here's a weekly column written by Bill O'Reilly, the toughest; yet most fair and balanced; talk show host in America, and perhaps even the world.

BillOReilly.com: Print Column - Charity: It's The Right Thing to Do

One of my favorite lines in this column is: 'Liberal philosophy is all about "nurturing" people who need help. The "tax the rich" crew can't yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.'

I was actually surprised by the findings of Mr. Brooks, but then again, how could I have been so foolish? How could I not have forseen this? Not that it matters, because now the truth has been exposed, even though for the left it is an 'inconvenient truth'. :rofl

 

[shuamort]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Individuals gave $199 billion of the $260 billion that charities received last year, about 76 cents of every $1 collected, and the bulk of it came from households with incomes of less than $100,000. Excluding $5.83 billion in one-time donations for victims of hurricanes, earthquakes and other disasters, and adjusting for inflation, individual giving last year was stagnant, dropping 0.1 percent.

If that's true, and conservatives are more generous than liberals, the reason would fit that conservatives are more poor than liberals.

Moreover, how are "charities" being defined? Are we talking like the Red Cross? Fine. Churches? Unless it's actual charity work that the church is doing instead of its mass, etc, then no. Or how about the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation where (o)ver 6 million to "Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation", another 4 million to the "Cato Institute", and the "Reason Foundation" got another 1.5 million. There are plenty of other grantees that have squat to do with performing good deeds or helping the less fortunate, as well as tons of other similar foundations.

Once these issues are addressed and we see his peer reviewed statistics, we can look at this debate more reasonably.

 

[Donkey1499]

Correlation does not equal causation.



If that's true, and conservatives are more generous than liberals, the reason would fit that conservatives are more poor than liberals.

Moreover, how are "charities" being defined? Are we talking like the Red Cross? Fine. Churches? Unless it's actual charity work that the church is doing instead of its mass, etc, then no. Or how about the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation where (o)ver 6 million to "Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation", another 4 million to the "Cato Institute", and the "Reason Foundation" got another 1.5 million. There are plenty of other grantees that have squat to do with performing good deeds or helping the less fortunate, as well as tons of other similar foundations.

Once these issues are addressed and we see his peer reviewed statistics, we can look at this debate more reasonably.

Or perhaps we should read Brooks' book. He sounds educated enough to have not missed anything.

 

[shuamort]

Or perhaps we should read Brooks' book. He sounds educated enough to have not missed anything.

That'd work if I weren't so lazy. :mrgreen:

 

[rathi]

What is the criteria for charity and the criteria for conservative/liberal? This is all in the definitions. For example, including a church or other religious organization as a charity will massively change the statistics. In addition, if trying to determine someones political leanings is not always easy. Many philanthropists end up supporting policies that don't fit into the mold. Think ross perot.

This guy could be right, but without the actual numbers I don't buy it.


Also what about the bit on moderate drinking promoting charity? Any comments on that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

What is the criteria for charity and the criteria for conservative/liberal? This is all in the definitions. For example, including a church or other religious organization as a charity will massively change the statistics. In addition, if trying to determine someones political leanings is not always easy. Many philanthropists end up supporting policies that don't fit into the mold. Think ross perot.

This guy could be right, but without the actual numbers I don't buy it.


Also what about the bit on moderate drinking promoting charity? Any comments on that.

From the reviews I've read, 'charity' is identified as those contributions for which there is no expectation of reciprocation of any kind, and the writer states his research shows that not only in religious contributions, but in all manner of charitable contributions across the board whether in cash, items of value, time, and/or blood, conservatives out give the liberals. There is no suggestion that there is no such thing as a generous liberal or stingy conservatives. The data takes the broad, rather than anecdotal view.

I think the inclusion of moderate drinking was to illustrate that the writer didn't mean only the goody two shoes who oppose all forms of vice kind of conservative, but includes the party animals too.

 

[rathi]

Is giving to a church really considered charity though? I mean tithing is somewhat compulsory and it can be used for a variety of non charitable purposes. I'm not saying that churches don't do charitable works, but they are not quite the same as a foodbank. And without definitions or hard numbers, I will keep moderate skepticism about his claims.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Is giving to a church really considered charity though? I mean tithing is somewhat compulsory and it can be used for a variety of non charitable purposes. I'm not saying that churches don't do charitable works, but they are not quite the same as a foodbank. And without definitions or hard numbers, I will keep moderate skepticism about his claims.

Tithing is not compulsory at all in most church denominations and is rather infrequent in most church denominations. As far as whether giving to your church is 'charity', we would have to look within the human heart to know that.

But church contributions aside, Brooks' research is quite adament that in ALL forms of charitable giving, even to secular organizations, the conservatives are outgiving the liberals.