Who Gives and Who Doesnt? (1 Viewer)

[RightinNYC]

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

Interesting.

 

[Kandahar]

Ya I think that second part hits the nail on the head: it probably has more to do with religion than politics. Evangelical Christians (who happen to be conservative more than average) are probably more driven to give to charity than others, on average.

My guess would be that if you controlled for religion (e.g. compared liberal atheists to conservative atheists, liberal evangelicals to conservative evangelicals, liberal Catholics to conservative Catholics, etc), that the political differences in charitable giving would disappear.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ya I think that second part hits the nail on the head: it probably has more to do with religion than politics. Evangelical Christians (who happen to be conservative more than average) are probably more driven to give to charity than others, on average.

My guess would be that if you controlled for religion (e.g. compared liberal atheists to conservative atheists, liberal evangelicals to conservative evangelicals, liberal Catholics to conservative Catholics, etc), that the political differences in charitable giving would disappear.

That still leaves the determination that religious people give more to charity (including explicitly non-religious charities) than non-religious people, which I think is an interesting proposition.

 

[Kandahar]

That still leaves the determination that religious people give more to charity (including explicitly non-religious charities) than non-religious people, which I think is an interesting proposition.

Ya I think that's probably true. Evangelicals give more to charity than everyone else. Doesn't make their other beliefs any less batshit insane though. :lol:

 

[Schweddy]

Thanks Amazon.com: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism: Books: Arthur C. Brooks is now on my wishlist for Christmas.

 

[Moot]

Interesting.

Why is Brooks pitting secular Liberals against religous Conservatives?

How exactly did Brookes determine whether each individual was a secular Liberal as compared to a religous Liberal? Is Brooks implying that only Conservatives are religous? Or does he imply there are no secular Conservatives? How exactly did Brooks determine who gives based on their religious and political beliefs? Was there a questionaire they filled out before they donated?

And how did ABC's 20/20 determine whether it was a secular Liberal or a Religous Conservative based on the cash they gave at a Salvation Army pot? Did they ask each individual their religious belief and their political affiliation? Did they ask how much money they made?

Because I checked with the US census bureau for Sioux Falls and San Fransico and 20/20 appears to be wrong. The poverty rate is much higher in San Fransico and more people own their homes in Sioux Falls by a substantial margin. Also, nearly half of San Fransicos population are ethnic of Asian and Hispanic persuasion. Now how exactly did 20/20 determine who was the secular Liberal and who was the religous Liberal or the religous Conservative putting money in the Salvation Army pot?

Sioux Falls, South Dakota, QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

San Francisco, California, QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

BTW, did Arthur Brooks include the predominatly conservative Mormons in his calculations? Because Mormons give a mandatory 10% tithing out of their paycheck to the Mormon church. Did he include their missionary work too? If he did, I think they may account for about 45% of the Conservative donations that Brookes is counting in his divisive, inaccurate, biased book.

Gee, if I was giving 10% of every paycheck to the church, I'd be feeling pretty charitable too. :roll:

 

[Moot]

That still leaves the determination that religious people give more to charity (including explicitly non-religious charities) than non-religious people, which I think is an interesting proposition.

Actually, if religous people give to charity at all its to their church. Because it turns out I was right about Brooks counting the Mormons. According to this website that uses IRS statistics....

"... The average charitable contribution per return filed in 2004 was about 2.4 percent of income. Contributions as a percentage of income varied from 5.2 percent in Utah to 1.4 percent in West Virginia. Though the average charitable deduction per return was $1,136 in 2004, state averages ranged from $2,332 in Utah to $517 in West Virginia ....
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/kbfiles/680/CharGiv_04.pdf

"Religious organizations received the single largest share of contributions, with more than $88 billion in estimated contributions to congregations and other religious entities for 2004," said Eugene R. Tempel, Ed.D., CFRE, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy, where Giving USA is researched and written. "Education is the next-largest category for giving, receiving about $34 billion in 2004." ....
Press Releases

How about that? Mormons account for the largest charitable contributors simply because they have a mandatory 10% tithing. Arthur Brooks couldn't have come up with his divisive statitics favoring Conservatives without them.

"To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information" Yeah, he sure did.

It might also interest folks to know the donations to churches account for about 50% of all charitable donations. So what about the other 50%?

Come now, no believes the Conservatives donate to schools, the next largest recipiant of chartiable donations, do they? I don't, because schools are for the most part, government institutions and the author Brookes says that Conservatives, "reject the notion that the government should participate in income redistribution". One only needs to look at the statistics for high school and college graduates in the red states to see the truth of that.

Anyway, most people give to charities for personal motives, be it tax deducitons or the Sierra club or to see that beautiful stained glass window every Sunday. It's those that give for the sake of giving and with humility that really count.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I would love to examine the actual research. The article itself lends itself to the possiblity of many confounding variables that could impact the findings. One intersting point that automatically grabbed my attention was the indication that more conservatives are charitable and more lower income people are charitable. This, in itself, seems like a contradiction, as the GSS (General Sociatal Surveys) identifies that conservative households, on average, earn between $2500 and $5600 more than liberal households (I am trying to locate a primary source for these figures; so far have only located a number of secondary sources). Also, again without reading the actual data, determining what a liberal and conservative are, would be difficult. And how do moderates play into this...there are more moderates than either liberals or conseravtives.

The whole religious aspect may be accurate in principal, but I question the motivation. Hoot brings up a good point in regards to Mormans. Evangelicals are often required (or see it as a requirement) to give a certain percentage of their imcome to the church for 'charity', but is it really charity if the motivation is not to help the needy?

Though I often don't have much time to read many books, I may read this one in order to examine the data. I would be interesting to see what correlations do exist and what one do not.

 

[Gardener]

I'm not all that interested in this self-justifying partisanship, but I do know I donate regularly to local schools and organizations and am currently offering a discount to anybody who drops some food in one of our collection bins for one of our local food drives.


I think by today's polarized standards I would be considered a "moderate".

 

[Stace]

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

This is the part I find interesting. To me, it almost seems to imply that, because the states traditionally go to Conservatives/Republicans, that the liberals that live there are insignificant, or perhaps they just don't exist there :2razz: . Secondly....well, no kidding most of those states are red....most of the states in this country, period, are red! Blue states just tend to have higher populations. :smile:

Me personally...I used to donate to charity. Not as substantially as $1,800, but I gave what I could. But right now, I just can't afford to - I can barely afford to put food in my pantry. But I'll still make a point of dropping at least a few coins in some buckets as I do my shopping over the next month.

The thing that I focus more on as far as charitable giving is concerned, is the spirit in which the funds were given, not the amount. Giving more doesn't necessarily mean that you care more, just as giving less does not mean you care less.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why is Brooks pitting secular Liberals against religous Conservatives?

Fail to see how he is. Sorry that you perceive statistics to be combative.

How exactly did Brookes determine whether each individual was a secular Liberal as compared to a religous Liberal?

Uh, by asking them what they considered themselves.

Is Brooks implying that only Conservatives are religous?

Where on earth did you get that from?

Or does he imply there are no secular Conservatives?

Again, I don't think you understand the article.

How exactly did Brooks determine who gives based on their religious and political beliefs?

He doesn't. He makes no unsupported claim as to the motivations behind donation, unlike you.

Was there a questionaire they filled out before they donated?

No, it was a poll.

And how did ABC's 20/20 determine whether it was a secular Liberal or a Religous Conservative based on the cash they gave at a Salvation Army pot? Did they ask each individual their religious belief and their political affiliation? Did they ask how much money they made?

No idea, I couldn't care less about the 20/20 stunt to fluff the article. I don't see it as reliable, and that's not what I'm referring to. The 20/20 stunt and the actual research are completely different things.

Because I checked with the US census bureau for Sioux Falls and San Fransico and 20/20 appears to be wrong. The poverty rate is much higher in San Fransico and more people own their homes in Sioux Falls by a substantial margin. Also, nearly half of San Fransicos population are ethnic of Asian and Hispanic persuasion. Now how exactly did 20/20 determine who was the secular Liberal and who was the religous Liberal or the religous Conservative putting money in the Salvation Army pot?

Sioux Falls, South Dakota, QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

San Francisco, California, QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Again, this has nothing to do with the actual Brooks research.

BTW, did Arthur Brooks include the predominatly conservative Mormons in his calculations?

Do you know a reason why they should be excluded?

Because Mormons give a mandatory 10% tithing out of their paycheck to the Mormon church.

So? What's your point?

Did he include their missionary work too? If he did, I think they may account for about 45% of the Conservative donations that Brookes is counting in his divisive, inaccurate, biased book.

If you think that the 1.5% of Mormons in this country constitute 45% of Conservative donations, then you are too far detached from logic and reason for me to continue this.

Gee, if I was giving 10% of every paycheck to the church, I'd be feeling pretty charitable too. :roll:

I have no clue what you're even trying to say here.

Actually, if religous people give to charity at all its to their church.

Got a source for this completely false and ridiculously simplistic assumption?

Because it turns out I was right about Brooks counting the Mormons.

You mean he didn't decide to arbitrarily exclude a group of people based on their religious affiliation? You do realize that doing so would WEAKEN his research's accuracy, right?

Quote:
"... The average charitable contribution per return filed in 2004 was about 2.4 percent of income. Contributions as a percentage of income varied from 5.2 percent in Utah to 1.4 percent in West Virginia. Though the average charitable deduction per return was $1,136 in 2004, state averages ranged from $2,332 in Utah to $517 in West Virginia ....

"Religious organizations received the single largest share of contributions, with more than $88 billion in estimated contributions to congregations and other religious entities for 2004," said Eugene R. Tempel, Ed.D., CFRE, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy, where Giving USA is researched and written. "Education is the next-largest category for giving, receiving about $34 billion in 2004." ....

What's your point? These numbers are not backing up what you're claiming.

How about that? Mormons account for the largest charitable contributors simply because they have a mandatory 10% tithing.

You appear to be misunderstanding your own source. Can you show me where it says that the 1.5% of Mormons in this country are the "largest charitable contributors?"

While it may be possible that as a percentage, Mormons give more on average than non-Mormons, because of the incredibly small number of Mormons and the fact that not all Mormons vote one party, your evidence does not support your claim.

Arthur Brooks couldn't have come up with his divisive statitics favoring Conservatives without them.

Again, nothing you provide supports this.

"To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information" Yeah, he sure did.

Where's this quote from? Context?

It might also interest folks to know the donations to churches account for about 50% of all charitable donations. So what about the other 50%?

Why is that a surprise, and what about the other 50%? Are you trying to imply something, because I have no idea what it is.

Come now, no believes the Conservatives donate to schools, the next largest recipiant of chartiable donations, do they?

Again, anything to back this up?

I don't, because schools are for the most part, government institutions and the author Brookes says that Conservatives, "reject the notion that the government should participate in income redistribution".

And that relates to education....how?

One only needs to look at the statistics for high school and college graduates in the red states to see the truth of that.

Care to share?

Anyway, most people give to charities for personal motives, be it tax deducitons or the Sierra club or to see that beautiful stained glass window every Sunday. It's those that give for the sake of giving and with humility that really count.

I fail to see the relevance of any of this.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Interesting.

Your data just says what state they're from, not their party affiliation.

Also - what defines a charity? Forking up big bucks at a megachurch to Ted Haggard and the abstinence only crowd?

Part of the story is about a guy with a donation bucket in Sioux City and SanFrancisco - how valid is that?

More data is needed to form a valid theory.

 

[talloulou]

I haven't read the book but recently participated in a door to door can food drive for the girl scouts. We went to a "rich" neighborhood thinking we would do better there than in the more middle class neighborhood. Oddly enough we did worse in the rich neighborhood. In my neighborhood you would be hard pressed to find a house where a person would refuse to give a girl scout some can of crap from the cabinet! :rofl But in the richer neighborhood we were turned down quite a bit. I was frankly shocked. I mean who doesn't have a can of something to spare? But to be fair I don't know if those rich folks got rich 'cause their stingy and perhaps thats what keeps the rest of us middle class or if they're just grumpy because they are inundated with people banging on their expensive doors for hand outs. :shock:

Or maybe rich people don't eat out of cans....hmmmm?:rofl

 

[BWG]

I haven't read the book but recently participated in a door to door can food drive for the girl scouts. We went to a "rich" neighborhood thinking we would do better there than in the more middle class neighborhood. Oddly enough we did worse in the rich neighborhood. In my neighborhood you would be hard pressed to find a house where a person would refuse to give a girl scout some can of crap from the cabinet! :rofl But in the richer neighborhood we were turned down quite a bit. I was frankly shocked. I mean who doesn't have a can of something to spare? But to be fair I don't know if those rich folks got rich 'cause their stingy and perhaps thats what keeps the rest of us middle class or if they're just grumpy because they are inundated with people banging on their expensive doors for hand outs. :shock:

Or maybe rich people don't eat out of cans....hmmmm?:rofl

I've worked with/for many charities on behalf of my company and independently and I've found what your saying to be generally true. I don't have 'proof', just general observation.

At my company the lower paid employees (hourly and salaried) and the top echelon gave the most generously (our top management was very generous), while middle-management, tech, engineer types (generally college graduates) seemed as though they were offended that you would even ask.
Same in neighborhoods. If you were located at a business in a fairly well-to-do neighborhood, they would literally step over you, as though you were a homeless person, while in a poorer area of town, they would dig deep in their pockets and give what seemed to be their last quarter or dollar.

Like I said this is very general observation, but I did this for many years and I could predict fairly accurately how someone would fare, depending on where and/or who they were asking for donations.

 

[1069]

Conservatives are more likely to be religious; religious people generally donate money through their churches. Tithing is more or less de rigeur in any religious community.
Liberals are more likely to be unaffiliated with religion and to donate to secular charities.
It is my personal belief that liberals are more likely to devote time to altruistic endeavors, either as well as or in lieu of money.
Volunteerism is not to be sneered at.
It is a measure of "charity" that this study appears not to take into account; one that cannot be quantified merely by examining bank statements.

 

[talloulou]

Conservatives are more likely to be religious; religious people generally donate money through their churches. Tithing is more or less de rigeur in any religious community.
Liberals are more likely to be unaffiliated with religion and to donate to secular charities.
It is my personal belief that liberals are more likely to devote time to altruistic endeavors, either as well as or in lieu of money.
Volunteerism is not to be sneered at.
It is a measure of "charity" that this study appears not to take into account; one that cannot be quantified merely by examining bank statements.

I'm not religious either and I donate time as well as money so I don't doubt that many other non-religious people do the same.

However I think you're way off on the religious not volunteering as much time. As someone who does volunteer alot I can tell you that being non-religious puts me in the minority of my other volunteer peers. And if you were to look around the world globally most of the people working in other parts of the world are religious.

 

[RightinNYC]

Your data just says what state they're from, not their party affiliation.

No, the actual data, (separate from the 20/20 stunt part) surveys actualparty/ideology ID.

Also - what defines a charity? Forking up big bucks at a megachurch to Ted Haggard and the abstinence only crowd

?

This questions was answered above. While religious organizations comprise a plurality of donations (for both conservatives and liberals alike), the data showed that conservatives were more likely to donate to explicitly non-religious causes as well.

Part of the story is about a guy with a donation bucket in Sioux City and SanFrancisco - how valid is that?

Not at all - that was a 20/20 gimmick to hype the story. That's not what the actual pertinent data is about.

 

[Moot]

Originally Posted by Moot
Why is Brooks pitting secular Liberals against religous Conservatives?

Fail to see how he is. Sorry that you perceive statistics to be combative.

No need to be sorry. I am not alone in finding Brooks assumptions biased. Sorry if you percieve the statistics as an excuse to feel superior.

"For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice." - Brooks

Brooks appears to be bitter in his biased agenda to discredit Liberals.

How exactly did Brookes determine whether each individual was a secular Liberal as compared to a religous Liberal?

Uh, by asking them what they considered themselves.

I seriously doubt Brooks asked anyone anything since he claims to base his assumptions on ten databases (most likely from the internet)....

...He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions....
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com

In other words, he twisted the data to fit his biased assumptions. LOL

Is Brooks implying that only Conservatives are religous?

Where on earth did you get that from?

From Brooks.

Or does he imply there are no secular Conservatives?

Again, I don't think you understand the article.

I fail to see how your opinion is relevant considering your own understanding of the article is extremely questionable.

How exactly did Brooks determine who gives based on their religious and political beliefs?

He doesn't. He makes no unsupported claim as to the motivations behind donation, unlike you.

"Unlike me?" Why if I didn't know better I'd swear you were trying to make this personal.

Brooks does indeed claim people's motivations by qualifying secular vs religous and Liberal vs Conservative and then writing a book about who of those two groups donate more.

....The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com

That is the entire premise of his book.

Trying to negate me by merely saying it isn't so and using little digs, hasn't proven a thing nor has it proven me wrong. I'm sorry if you think it does.

Was there a questionaire they filled out before they donated?

No, it was a poll.

What poll(s) exactly did he use?

And how did ABC's 20/20 determine whether it was a secular Liberal or a Religous Conservative based on the cash they gave at a Salvation Army pot? Did they ask each individual their religious belief and their political affiliation? Did they ask how much money they made?

No idea, I couldn't care less about the 20/20 stunt to fluff the article. I don't see it as reliable, and that's not what I'm referring to. The 20/20 stunt and the actual research are completely different things.

Again, this has nothing to do with the actual Brooks research.

Well, if you don't see the relevance of ABC's 20/20 and you claim it doesn't have anything to do with Brooks book (which is the sum of his questionable research), then why did you say it was "interesting" and post it in your OP?

BTW, did Arthur Brooks include the predominatly conservative Mormons in his calculations?

Do you know a reason why they should be excluded?

Because Mormons give a mandatory 10% tithing out of their paycheck to the Mormon church.

So? What's your point?

How about that? Mormons account for the largest charitable contributors simply because they have a mandatory 10% tithing.

If you think that the 1.5% of Mormons in this country constitute 45% of Conservative donations, then you are too far detached from logic and reason for me to continue this.

Factual evidence is a bit hard to dispute isn't it? LOL But uh, where did you get the 1.5% of Mormons statistic?

Gee, if I was giving 10% of every paycheck to the church, I'd be feeling pretty charitable too.

I have no clue what you're even trying to say here.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Actually, if religous people give to charity at all its to their church.

Got a source for this completely false and ridiculously simplistic assumption?

According to the US census, 50% of all donations goes to churches. According to the IRS, Mormons make up the most of those donations at 5.1% from every paycheck going to directly to the Mormon church. Links to sources were provided in previous post. So why is that a false, ridiculous, simplistic assumption?

Because it turns out I was right about Brooks counting the Mormons.

You mean he didn't decide to arbitrarily exclude a group of people based on their religious affiliation? You do realize that doing so would WEAKEN his research's accuracy, right?

Of course it would weaken Brooks research accuracy. That was the point in bringing up the Mormons mandatory 10 % tithing. Mandatory tithing is more like a tax and is quite different than giving freely to charity. So if mandatory tithing is taken out of the equasion, I seriously doubt the religous Conservatives would be considered quite so charitable and giving.

"... The average charitable contribution per return filed in 2004 was about 2.4 percent of income. Contributions as a percentage of income varied from 5.2 percent in Utah to 1.4 percent in West Virginia. Though the average charitable deduction per return was $1,136 in 2004, state averages ranged from $2,332 in Utah to $517 in West Virginia ....

"Religious organizations received the single largest share of contributions, with more than $88 billion in estimated contributions to congregations and other religious entities for 2004," said Eugene R. Tempel, Ed.D., CFRE, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy, where Giving USA is researched and written. "Education is the next-largest category for giving, receiving about $34 billion in 2004." ....

What's your point? These numbers are not backing up what you're claiming.

Actually, they do. But if you don't think so, then prove otherwise. Your unsubstantiated opinion is irrelevant.

How about that? Mormons account for the largest charitable contributors simply because they have a mandatory 10% tithing.

You appear to be misunderstanding your own source. Can you show me where it says that the 1.5% of Mormons in this country are the "largest charitable contributors?"

My source(s), which I already provided says that in the state of Utah, people contribute 5.2% of their income. Since those people are most likely to be Mormons due to their 10% tithing, that makes them the largest donators in the country. Where is your source that says they aren't?

According to the same source those who contribute the least live in West Virgina at 1.4%. Perhaps a demographic map would help show where the tithing givers live.....

http://www.mormon-news.com/images/30layoutbig.jpg

http://www.mormon-news.com/tithing/

While it may be possible that as a percentage, Mormons give more on average than non-Mormons, because of the incredibly small number of Mormons and the fact that not all Mormons vote one party, your evidence does not support your claim.

Utah is the reddest state in the union where Mormons are the majority. That would suggest that most Mormons vote one party. So actually, it does support my claim and not yours.

"To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information" Yeah, he sure did.

Where's this quote from? Context?

....Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information....
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com

Brooks admits he "fluffed" up his book to please his collegues and editor. He admits his book lacks credibility and I agree with him.

Why is that a surprise, and what about the other 50%?

Are you trying to imply something, because I have no idea what it is.

Come now, no believes the Conservatives donate to schools, the next largest recipiant of chartiable donations, do they?

Again, anything to back this up?

I don't, because schools are for the most part, government institutions and the author Brookes says that Conservatives, "reject the notion that the government should participate in income redistribution".

And that relates to education....how?

One only needs to look at the statistics for high school and college graduates in the red states to see the truth of that.

Care to share?

Since I already provided the source (US census) and you obviously didn't read and/or understand it the first time, why should I post it again?

Anyway, most people give to charities for personal motives, be it tax deducitons or the Sierra club or to see that beautiful stained glass window every Sunday. It's those that give for the sake of giving and with humility that really count.

I fail to see the relevance of any of this.

Since it is relevant to the topic, I fail to see that you understand what the topic is. :rofl

 

[RightinNYC]

No need to be sorry. I am not alone in finding Brooks assumptions biased. Sorry if you percieve the statistics as an excuse to feel superior.

Er...where did I claim superiority?

"For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice." - Brooks

Brooks appears to be bitter in his biased agenda to discredit Liberals.

So you choose to disbelieve his study based on your interpretation of his attitude toward liberals.

I seriously doubt Brooks asked anyone anything since he claims to base his assumptions on ten databases (most likely from the internet)....

...He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions....
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com

1) Where did you get the "most likely from the internet" from?
2) If you had a basic understanding of statistics, you would recognize the fact that 10 scientific surveys is a fairly comprehensive basis for research.

In other words, he twisted the data to fit his biased assumptions. LOL

What on earth are you talking about? Any backup for this, or just your own misinterpretation of the study?

From Brooks.

Please show me where Brooks said "only conservatives are religious"

"Unlike me?" Why if I didn't know better I'd swear you were trying to make this personal.

Huh? I pointed out the fact that you made an unsupported argument. If you find that personal, I don't know what to tell you.

Brooks does indeed claim people's motivations by qualifying secular vs religous and Liberal vs Conservative and then writing a book about who of those two groups donate more.

....The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com

That is the entire premise of his book.

First off, can we just take a moment to recognize how hilarious it is that you're criticizing my sources, but citing "beliefnet"?:lol:

Secondly, I really don't know how to put this any other way, but you don't seem to be doing a very good job of reading comprehension. You fail to understand the points that Brooks makes, and then when I try to explain them, you don't understand what I'm saying either.

Example: Saying that conservatives and religious people are more likely to donate than liberals or secular does NOT mean that you're saying that all conservatives are religious or that all liberals are secular.

What poll(s) exactly did he use?

Er, the 10 you cited earlier in this thread.

Well, if you don't see the relevance of ABC's 20/20 and you claim it doesn't have anything to do with Brooks book (which is the sum of his questionable research), then why did you say it was "interesting" and post it in your OP?

What the hell are you talking about? Nowhere in my original post did I reference the 20/20 stunt with the charity bins, I referred solely to the actual statistical research.

Factual evidence is a bit hard to dispute isn't it?

Yea, which is why I'm perplexed that you're still trying.

LOL But uh, where did you get the 1.5% of Mormons statistic?

Pick one:

The Graduate Center, CUNY
Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S Demographics for Religion

According to the US census, 50% of all donations goes to churches. According to the IRS, Mormons make up the most of those donations at 5.1% from every paycheck going to directly to the Mormon church. Links to sources were provided in previous post. So why is that a false, ridiculous, simplistic assumption?

Because you don't seem to understand basic math.

I'll lay it out for you.

If you have a group that constitutes 1.5% of a population and that group donates at a rate of 5.1% of their income, it does NOT mean that the total donations from that group constitute a majority of all donations. It's really not that hard of a concept.

Of course it would weaken Brooks research accuracy. That was the point in bringing up the Mormons mandatory 10 % tithing. Mandatory tithing is more like a tax and is quite different than giving freely to charity. So if mandatory tithing is taken out of the equasion, I seriously doubt the religous Conservatives would be considered quite so charitable and giving.

You simply don't understand how statistics work. You can't subtract a group from a survey simply because you feel like their donations are going to a place you don't like or are not given 100% willingly. Furthermore, you completely overstate the impact that mormons have on total giving.

My source(s), which I already provided says that in the state of Utah, people contribute 5.2% of their income. Since those people are most likely to be Mormons due to their 10% tithing, that makes them the largest donators in the country. Where is your source that says they aren't?

Here's my source.

I'm not going to explain to you again why it doesn't add up like that.

According to the same source those who contribute the least live in West Virgina at 1.4%. Perhaps a demographic map would help show where the tithing givers live.....

http://www.mormon-news.com/images/30layoutbig.jpg

http://www.mormon-news.com/tithing/

Nope, actually, that didn't show anything.

Utah is the reddest state in the union where Mormons are the majority. That would suggest that most Mormons vote one party. So actually, it does support my claim and not yours.

Your complete disregard for logic is really starting to get to me.


You can't assume that simply because a state that contains a large minority of one group happens to be a strong supporter of a politician that all the members of that group belong to that party and then donate 10% of their income to churches. It just doesn't work that way.

....Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information....
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com

Brooks admits he "fluffed" up his book to please his collegues and editor. He admits his book lacks credibility and I agree with him.

Uh, no, he did the same thing that Tom Friedman did. Does that mean the book lost its credibility? No. It means he explained his arguments in a prose that (he hoped, but apparently its been lost on some) would be understood by the masses.

And again with the citing beliefnet.:lol:

Since I already provided the source (US census) and you obviously didn't read and/or understand it the first time, why should I post it again?

:shock:

Since it is relevant to the topic, I fail to see that you understand what the topic is. :rofl

Oy.

 

[niftydrifty]

Brooks' book is not serious. It's a classic case of a disengenuous author arriving at conclusions and fudging 'data' to conform to those conclusions. Throw this one on the pile along with Moore's F911, and countless other partisan culture war books, an effort to make money more than anything else.

There were a handful of articles in the papers when the book came out, where a lot was made about Brooks' background. He grew up in a Liberal household. He really didn't want to believe the data he was uncovering while he was working on the book. This is all an effort to persuade rather than convince.

Has anyone looked at Brooks' website? It's a joke. Just look at this page, entitled "statistics."

Half of the page isn't, in fact, "statistics," there are bold-faced conclusions, followed by explanations by Brooks, with no supporting evidence. If I did this at my job, in a meeting, or what-have-you, I'd get asked why or how. If I couldn't back up my statements, I'd get laughed out of the room and sent back to the drawing board. This "statistics" page is telling, and it is indicative of the way Brooks has put this project together. Brooks knows that in this soundbyte media culture we have, one can simply say whatever one wants to and that folks will start to believe it. If you spoonfeed conclusions people will want to believe, they'll even ask for it for Christmas.

Take this for example. "Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households." Conservative how? When? Liberal how? What constitutes a charity? I suspect that if Brooks were more specific, his conclusions (I hesitate to say "argument" when I haven't been presented with any) would be far less compelling.

My problem with the book is that the conclusions Brooks reaches are big leaps from what the actual data suggests. The only general conclusion Brooks could really state with any confidence is that religious people are more generous than non-religious people. And, get this, he USED TO say that, but, *gasp*, it didn't sell. Now he's repackaged his effort like a good culture warrior, and before long, this book will be on the NYT best seller list, and all over Fox Opinion Channel, if it isn't already.

Why is Brooks pitting secular Liberals against religous Conservatives?

In order to make money. "Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did."

Yep, it sure has generated a discussion. And here we are, trying to talk some sense into the usual suspects.

 

[Moot]

Er...where did I claim superiority?

It's written all over your face. LOL.

So you choose to disbelieve his study based on your interpretation of his attitude toward liberals.

Hardly. Brooks seems to be doing quite well proving his bias without any interpretations from me....

Mr. Brooks's work for The Wall Street Journal's famously conservative op-ed page, and a promotional tour for the book that reads like a conservative coming-out party. There's a keynote address at a Manhattan Institute for Policy Research dinner, a book signing at the American Enterprise Institute, and an interviews with John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 and radio talk-show host Michael Medved — two people known for conservative views.....
The Chronicle, 11/23/2006: Charity's Political Divide

1) Where did you get the "most likely from the internet" from?

From my academic research on Brooks sources. LOL

For example, Brooks cites SCCBS as his main source in his op-ed for the Policy Review Online.... Religious Faith and Charitable Giving by Arthur C. Brooks - Policy Review, No. 121
He doesn't reference any other databases in his 2003 article, yet he draws the same conclusions and uses the same data in his book, Who Really Cares? The SCCBS data is readily available on the internet.

I'm not the only one who notices Brooks dependancy on SCCBS. Jim Lindgren writes...

"Some of its main conclusions are based on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), some of whose demographics don't appear to match national representative samples such as the GSS and ANES." ...read
The Volokh Conspiracy - Concerns About Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares."--

Please show me where Brooks said "only conservatives are religious"

Please show me where he included religous Liberals in his calculations.

Huh? I pointed out the fact that you made an unsupported argument. If you find that personal, I don't know what to tell you.

I pointed out the fact that you made an ad hominen attack when you said, "unlike you". Now how would you know what was unlike me? Have we ever met? Are you my ex? LOL

First off, can we just take a moment to recognize how hilarious it is that you're criticizing my sources, but citing "beliefnet"?:lol:

First off, I did not criticize your sources. But I did criticize the study on ABC by 20/20 and provided the evidence to support my claims. In other words, I criticized the content in your source, not the source itself.

Second off, what is wrong with "beliefnet?" The article on its website seemed to give Brooks book a glowing review. Do you have a problem with that?

Secondly, I really don't know how to put this any other way, but you don't seem to be doing a very good job of reading comprehension. You fail to understand the points that Brooks makes, and then when I try to explain them, you don't understand what I'm saying either.

Insulting my reading comprehension because I don't agree with you is an ad hominen attack. I fail to see how that explains any point you have. Instead of relying on fallacy and ad hominen attacks, have you thought to try and defend Brooks book with some facts and credible evidence?

Example: Saying that conservatives and religious people are more likely to donate than liberals or secular does NOT mean that you're saying that all conservatives are religious or that all liberals are secular.

I'm not the one saying it....Brooks is. Here is how he defines Liberals and Conservatives....

First, we must define “liberals” and “conservatives.” ..... In this discussion, by “liberals” I mean the approximately 30 percent in the two most liberal categories, and by conservatives I mean the 40 percent or so in the two most con*servative categories.....
Who Really Cares • Arthur C. Brooks

So how does he determine which of the 30% Liberals are secular and which of the 40% Conservatives are religous? Or is he just lumping all Liberals together and calling them secular and then lumping all Conservatives together and calling them religous? He doesn't seem to say.

What the hell are you talking about? Nowhere in my original post did I reference the 20/20 stunt with the charity bins, I referred solely to the actual statistical research.

Well, actually you did. Because the only source and link you provided in your OP was to ABC's article on 20/20 and you didn't give an opinion other to say it was interesting. So we are left to conclude that you agreed with what you posted because if you didn't you wouldn't have posted it or else you would have said that you disagreed with it. You see how that works?

Pick one:

The Graduate Center, CUNY
Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S Demographics for Religion

Pick one and do what? What is your point?

Because you don't seem to understand basic math. I'll lay it out for you.
If you have a group that constitutes 1.5% of a population and that group donates at a rate of 5.1% of their income, it does NOT mean that the total donations from that group constitute a majority of all donations. It's really not that hard of a concept.

Well okay. But if that 1.5% religous group donates or should I say pays tithing more than all the other religous groups put together, then my math tells me they do constitute a majority of all donations that goes to church/religous organizations.

Again, according to the IRS, church donations make up 50% of all charitable donations in the US. Mandatory tithing makes up most of the donations to churches. So my math tells me that 1.5% of the population giving 5.2% of their paycheck to 50% of all charitys aka the church could easily make them the majority among religous folks who donate to church organizations.

You simply don't understand how statistics work. You can't subtract a group from a survey simply because you feel like their donations are going to a place you don't like or are not given 100% willingly. Furthermore, you completely overstate the impact that mormons have on total giving.

Okay lets forget about the Mormons and just focus on those who pay tithing. So what's the difference between paying tithing and paying union dues? Should we count paying union dues as charity?

Here's my source.

Cute. But I question if you understand your source. LOL.

Uh, no, he did the same thing that Tom Friedman did. Does that mean the book lost its credibility? No. It means he explained his arguments in a prose that (he hoped, but apparently its been lost on some) would be understood by the masses.

If Friedman "forced" and "left out qualifying information" to make his point and you are comparing him to Brooks, then how do "two wrongs don't make a right?" Doesn't it just makes two wrongs?

"To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information...."

See there, in order to FORCE his point on the reader, Brooks left our A LOT OF QUALIFYING INFORMATION.

For instance, did Brooks mention that religous Liberals actually donate equally to religous Conservatives? Did he mention that Liberals who make up 30% of the population donate more than Moderates who also make up 30% of the population? Did Brooks mention that Liberals and Conservatives both donate more than Moderates?
The Volokh Conspiracy - Concerns About Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares."--

If Brooks had qualified his information it probably would have showed that Moderates are at the stingiest end of the spectrum and not Liberals like he is trying to imply.

Yet Brooks chose to focus on secular Liberals without qualifying how he determined who was a secular Liberal. Why did he do that if he wasn't trying to show bias? Was it just to sell books? Or was something more sinister like setting the stage against the first amendments, separation of church and state?

Oh did I forget to mention that Brooks is a fan of Judge Robert Bork, Judge Renquist and Irving Kristol?

And again with the citing beliefnet.:lol:

So? Again, whats wrong beliefnet? :roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ya I think that's probably true. Evangelicals give more to charity than everyone else. Doesn't make their other beliefs any less batshit insane though. :lol:

You guys don't get it, Evangelicals don't give more to charity than everyone else. In fact, evangelicals are probably some of the worst donors to secular charity organizations. However, Evangelicals do give more to their church and religious organizations than anyone else. While that would be considered charitable giving for tax purposes, funding ones all white suburban tax exempt country club (mega-church) is not exactly what most of us would consider a charity.

 

[Moot]

Brooks' book is not serious. It's a classic case of a disengenuous author arriving at conclusions and fudging 'data' to conform to those conclusions. Throw this one on the pile along with Moore's F911, and countless other partisan culture war books, an effort to make money more than anything else.

There were a handful of articles in the papers when the book came out, where a lot was made about Brooks' background. He grew up in a Liberal household. He really didn't want to believe the data he was uncovering while he was working on the book. This is all an effort to persuade rather than convince.

Has anyone looked at Brooks' website? It's a joke. Just look at this page, entitled "statistics."

Half of the page isn't, in fact, "statistics," there are bold-faced conclusions, followed by explanations by Brooks, with no supporting evidence. If I did this at my job, in a meeting, or what-have-you, I'd get asked why or how. If I couldn't back up my statements, I'd get laughed out of the room and sent back to the drawing board. This "statistics" page is telling, and it is indicative of the way Brooks has put this project together. Brooks knows that in this soundbyte media culture we have, one can simply say whatever one wants to and that folks will start to believe it. If you spoonfeed conclusions people will want to believe, they'll even ask for it for Christmas.

Take this for example. "Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households." Conservative how? When? Liberal how? What constitutes a charity? I suspect that if Brooks were more specific, his conclusions (I hesitate to say "argument" when I haven't been presented with any) would be far less compelling.

My problem with the book is that the conclusions Brooks reaches are big leaps from what the actual data suggests. The only general conclusion Brooks could really state with any confidence is that religious people are more generous than non-religious people. And, get this, he USED TO say that, but, *gasp*, it didn't sell. Now he's repackaged his effort like a good culture warrior, and before long, this book will be on the NYT best seller list, and all over Fox Opinion Channel, if it isn't already.

In order to make money. "Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did."

Yep, it sure has generated a discussion. And here we are, trying to talk some sense into the usual suspects.

Very good post, niftydrifty.

Yup, here we are trying to convince the usual suspects. LOL

Soon the rightwing echo chamber will be pushing Brooks book and calling for the MSM to carry the story just in time for Bush's next nominee to the Supreme court.

Take this for example. "Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households." Conservative how? When? Liberal how? What constitutes a charity? I suspect that if Brooks were more specific, his conclusions (I hesitate to say "argument" when I haven't been presented with any) would be far less compelling

Brooks got that data from the SCCBS. That seems to be his main source in spite of all the other databases he claims to use. Yet the SCCBS doesn't seem to jive with other national representative samples such as the GSS and ANES.
The Volokh Conspiracy - Concerns About Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares."--

In order to make money. "Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did."

In one of Brooks op-eds from 2003he's basically saying the same thing he does in his book. So I question that he started the book as an academic treatise or was surprised by its conclusions.

Religious Faith and Charitable Giving by Arthur C. Brooks - Policy Review, No. 121

Another thing I found suspect about Brooks is that in his 2003 op-ed when talks about Conservatives he seems to refer to his statistical scientific findings and references fairly current people. Yet when he talks about secular Liberals he seems to refer back to books written in the 1600s and 1800s. Not sure what to conclude from this.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

When my wife was pregnant with our son (he is now 6), we went out trying to find a church. The problem we had was that I was raised Catholic and she was raised Southern Baptist. So basically we were looking to find a compromise. Over the course of several months, we visited several churches representing several different denominations. One of the main criteria we used in looking for a church, aside from liking the pastor and being in pretty good agreement with the churches theological teachings, was how much of the church's budget went toward helping the less fortunate. There was a general trend that emerged. Conservative Evangelical Churches tended to put a much larger portion of their resources into membership building, proselytizing to others, and expanding parish facilities. Conversely, mainstream and more liberal denominations tended to put a much larger proportion of their resources into anti-poverty programs, ministering to the sick, and in many cases supporting schools and anti-poverty missions in the third world. We ended up joining an Episcopal Parish that literally uses more than half of its annual budget on anti-poverty programs and funding a mission school in Haiti.

To the Federal Government, every cent we tithe is a charitable contribution. However, there is a difference between writing a check out to a parish that will use the majority of that check toward helping the less fortunate in your community and abroad, and writing a check to a parish that will use the majority of that check toward building a new "youth center" in some upper middle class white suburb to attract more members.

 

[Synch]

When my wife was pregnant with our son (he is now 6), we went out trying to find a church. The problem we had was that I was raised Catholic and she was raised Southern Baptist. So basically we were looking to find a compromise. Over the course of several months, we visited several churches representing several different denominations. One of the main criteria we used in looking for a church, aside from liking the pastor and being in pretty good agreement with the churches theological teachings, was how much of the church's budget went toward helping the less fortunate. There was a general trend that emerged. Conservative Evangelical Churches tended to put a much larger portion of their resources into membership building, proselytizing to others, and expanding parish facilities. Conversely, mainstream and more liberal denominations tended to put a much larger proportion of their resources into anti-poverty programs, ministering to the sick, and in many cases supporting schools and anti-poverty missions in the third world. We ended up joining an Episcopal Parish that literally uses more than half of its annual budget on anti-poverty programs and funding a mission school in Haiti.

To the Federal Government, every cent we tithe is a charitable contribution. However, there is a difference between writing a check out to a parish that will use the majority of that check toward helping the less fortunate in your community and abroad, and writing a check to a parish that will use the majority of that check toward building a new "youth center" in some upper middle class white suburb to attract more members.

All true, Religious Conservatives are no where near as generous or kind hearted to all as the article in the Opening Post wanted you to believe, however I believe you're painting a false picture also.

CNN.com Election 2004

Those with annual income lower than 30,000 voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.. In fact his vote percentile by income group was inversely proportional to the annual income as it increased... The "rich" to "higher middle class", who bear a draconian(the least draconian, but still draconian IMO) share of the taxes, don't benefit from these "charities". In addition this tax is mandatory and enforced through violent means. These tax benefits go overwhelming to the poor, let's say the bottom quintile of this country. Essentially liberals are pursuing a system where money is forcibly taken away from those who produce most in society and given to those who who overwhelmingly their constituents.

There are more differences between church and governmental "charities" than what you've listed, and I would say church charities are better by a margin, because 1st, you're not bound by law or threatened any tangible punitive force to pay, and 2nd you know where it's going to go to, you have control over where it goes to, because you can simply not donate if your requests are not satisfied.

In addition, observing governmental spending policy since the 1960s, a large portion if not a plurality is simply wasted away. Our tax dollars have been so mismanaged I'd rather give it to the the church then let it be wasted on wars or bridges in Alaska.

SouthernDem, what percentage of charity money given to churches overall would you say goes to the genuinely needy?