A disconcerting contrast: Liberals and [not] giving

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_starinvestor, Jan 29, 2009.

  1. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    After observing the daily condemnations of the behavior of the right for the last 8 years, etc., the continual pleas for the less fortunate, the starch defending of heavy social services spending in the Stimulus Bill.....all by the liberals....it is indeed disconcerting and rather embarrassing to view thier own history and record on giving.:frown1:

    As it turn out, the average liberal household earns 6% more than the average conservative household. Yet conservatives give 30% more to charitable causes.

    Moreover, it seems conservatives 'give til it hurts,' literally.

    Not only do conservatives donate more money, but also more blood and more time to the less fortunate.

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

    So championing a cause of helping the underprivileged, demanding that members of society are taken care of, assisting the ill and disabled is their platform and belief system...as long as somebody else does it.

    Meanwhile, conservatives are donating time, blood and money to the very causes that they are accused of ignoring....at a substantially higher rate than the liberals.

    Can anyone make sense of this tragic 'bait and switch' philosophical divergence?

    "That person needs assistance! Now! Only someone else needs to give it to him because I'm not donating any of my own time, money or blood." -Liberal
     
    #1 B_starinvestor, Jan 29, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2009
  2. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    For the young and eager liberals:

    I hope this isn't too devastating a letdown. This was not my intention.

    I hope you can work to improving the charitable performance of your affiliation in the future; and question the leaders of your group in relation to hypocritical behavior and selfishness - it will improve the entire left wing.
     
  3. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Last year I gave money to:

    1. Barack Obama's presidential campaign

    2. The "No on 8" (CA Marriage Equality) campaign

    3. The ACLU


    I wonder if any of these would qualify in the conservative mindset as "charitable giving".
     
  4. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,249
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    Ummm... why should we believe a web story that is based on a book written by the head of the American Enterprise Institute. The so-called money that conservatives gave to charity includes the money that they gave to churches. Many commentators thought that Brooks played up the role of religion too much, arguing that a charity gap is largely erased when religious giving is not considered.

    American legal commentator and Law Professor at UCLA Eugene Volokh writes that, "Although the liberal vs. conservative split is the hook for the book, the data are not nearly as stark as the hype surrounding the book might indicate."

    Beliefnet has stated that, "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."

    Brooks used the General Social Survey for his data and...

    In nearly every case, the General Social Survey data show that liberals contribute more and volunteer more than do conservatives. There are exceptions of course (for example, conservatives donate far more to religious organizations, which do some charitable work but are otherwise just social clubs), and there are many, many cases in which the data is ambiguous. But the General Social Survey shows that the trend is that liberals are more generous than conservatives.

    His so-called Independent status as a voter is a bunch of crap and he is one of the most conservative voices in this country.

    Nice try Star.

     
  5. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    George Will? Is that your source?

    What do you think could have changed in the past three months?

    Here's 1BiGG1 complaining that Obama's aunt gave him money. Here's 11inchcok complaining that liberals were taking illegal contributions and funneling them to charities. Here's wispandex_bulge complaining that Obama didn't handicap himself with John McCain's spending limits.

    Pshaw! Y'all were just fronting -- complaining about how much money he was raising while secretly giving to his record-breaking campaign. I sure tell you -- Christmas came early for the liberals this year!

    So, thank you to all those generous conservatives with deep pockets who financed Barack Obama's campaign so us stingy liberals didn't have to. Thank you for financing the ACLU for all these years -- that's really big of you after all the trouble their lawsuits have caused! I don't speak for them, but I'm sure NOW and NARAL appreciate all you've done to help them defend Roe v. Wade!
     
  6. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    I would associate 'charitable' as something that is for charity. Alas, #1 no way, Jose.

    The other two - noble, but not 'charitable.'
     
  7. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    I thought you might answer this way, star: the careful delineation between political and charitable giving.

    I also bought 20 bucks worth of Girl Scout cookies from my niece. Thin Mints and Samoas. But this "charitable donation" was nowhere near as satisfying as giving to the "No on 8" campaign... or joyously giving money to Barack Obama after his stunning Iowa caucus victory.

    After 8 long years of GWB, trust me, star, giving money to Obama is CHARITABLE. It renews your faith in this country and this Constitution. It was the Ultimate Charity for me.
     
  8. B_24065

    B_24065 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    1
    George Will? Mr. Will is one of the most respected journalists in the country. period. He is a fucking Pulitzer prize winner douche bag. So fuck your attempts to once again marginalize anyone who isnt a gay communist you piece of liberal shit.
     
  9. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    A book written by a professor at Syracuse. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About…Amazon.ca: Arthur C. Brooks: Books

    Who is a better authority on the subject?

    "Many commentators?"

    I knew someone would pin this on church. The truth is that those that attend church, are more likely to donate as a group. Of the dollars that do go to church, we can debate whether or not they are more effective with those dollars than certain charities..but that is for another time.

    For now, we are discussing charitable donations.

    This is fascinating considering the academic community is largely liberal, and Brooks leans liberal.

    What data? Here's the data: the average liberal household gives $1,227/yr and the avg conservative household $1,600.

    Tri, he's a lib. Notice in his Wiki def his parents were professors and his upbringing was liberal. His passions, among other things, are arts funding and orchestra. His last book was Gross National Happiness.

    He is one of the world's leading authorities on Charity and completely independent.
     
  10. devron

    devron New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wes-Vahginia
    It shows the difference is negligible. You can't discount things simply because it goes to religion. The definition of charity used in the study is a sound one and the factors eliminated span both groups. Taxes for social programs, which some think were unjustly disqualified, are not voluntary and not charitable.

    ""Although the liberal vs. conservative split is the hook for the book, the data are not nearly as stark as the hype surrounding the book might indicate."

    is exactly correct. The book does have inaccuracies and BS, but in the end, there isn't a great deal of difference. Not enough for either side to start with the nanny-nanny-poo-poos.
     
  11. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    You've read the book?

    30% is not negligible. It is substantial. If you don't think so, volunteer for a 30% pay cut.
     
  12. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    I NEVER give until it hurts. I just give until it feels good.
     
  13. devron

    devron New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wes-Vahginia
    30% isn't. But from the figures I found (which might be wrong), I don't see where he came up with that figure. He breaks it into 2 cats, each with 2 subsets. Secular conservative and liberals vs religious conservatives and liberals. The only way I see anything approaching that is if you don't take Secular conservatives and religious liberals into the question. All subgroups together, they are close.
     
  14. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,249
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    459
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    :chairfall:
     
  15. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Oh, I get it.
    We're the stingy ones now.
    Didn't matter that we weren't screaming over a stimulus package that included contraception. No, it's US that are the penny pinchers.

    And in two weeks, we'll be the ones that spend in excess again.
    :rolleyes:
     
  16. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
     
  17. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think there's an ideological reason conservatives tend to give more to "charity".

    The whole conservative philosophy is, in part, built on the premise that government is "bad", government is "wasteful" and inefficient, that redistribution of wealth via the government (from the various collected taxes) to remedy income inequality is inferior to direct giving.

    Conservatives are much more likely to give checks to private educational charities, say, or private health care.... because their philosophy is built on the idea that government is "bad" at education and health care.... that government screws up whatever it touches. That free-market capitalism is a superior answer to the state-sponsored solutions.

    Liberals have a much more healthy attitude toward their govenment. (after all, governement can, theoretically, be run efficiently when it is not in the hands of conservatives, who do not think government is an effectual institution). Liberals tend to give time and money to causes that strengthen the government. Conservatives tend to give time and money to private organizations.
     
  18. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    That sounds like a pretty fair assessment, WT. Two questions, though:

    1. In the same notion, do you believe that liberals don't trust charities in their use of funding?

    2. By [in your words] Liberals tend to give time and money to causes that strengthen the government - do you think that is an effective way to help those in need of social services?

    The unfortunate folks, or those in need...that are constantly being used in posts by Mindseye and Sargon...would those folks' needs be served best by donations to charities...or by donations to causes that strenghten government?
     
  19. B_24065

    B_24065 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    1

    Bingo. you nailed it willtom. i think govt sucks fucking rotten donkey dick thats been in bigfoots ass. Govt has always always always fucked up everything its touched. please give one example, just one, of a thriving, wealthy, strong, and stable socialist govt... ever. everything the govmt controls in this country is a joke other than our military. schools-joke, social security-joke, medicare/medicaid-joke. the country is left better off when the govt gets out of the way and lets the market place do its thing. we wouldnt be in this financial mess in the first place had the govmt not intervened in the banking system. i think govt does have a constructive role in enforcing laws and regulations that prevent abuses by larger coorps but not to the extent that it is today.
     
  20. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male

    He may be a Pulitzer prize winner douche bag, but I wouldn't go that far.

    He's a gifted writer: most columnists -- at all places on the political spectrum -- don't write as well as he does. I sure don't. But he's not an objective reporter; he's a political commentator for the right.

    However, I'll happily accept this opinion piece by George Will in exchange for a free pass to cite Michael Moore as gospel truth on a subject of my choosing in the future. Okay?

    "Constantly"?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted