Ending BUSH Tax Cuts

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

"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."

"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."

If you can find any evidence that states this is factually inaccurate, feel free to post it.

Well, I haven't actually crunched numbers myself. However, here is a blog that addresses Brooks' book.

Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs from the blog:

So when I see that [Arthur Brooks] has got a new book out claiming that conservatives are more charitable than liberals, I'm naturally quite skeptical. My previous experience with Brooks has led me to believe that he is highly disingenuous and not beyond jimmying the numbers to fit his thesis.

So I checked the General Social Survey, one of his sources, to see if the raw data do indeed fit his thesis. What a surprise, they don't. In nearly every case, the GSS 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 trend is that liberals are more generous than conservatives.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

On RealClearPolitics.com, which, as far as I know is considered quite non-partisan, I found some elaboration of Brooks' findings by George Will.
Now a lot of people will groan. Will? That dinosaur? But I'm sure Will can give an accurate summary of material from a book.
Will's summary runs counter to what the blogger I quoted above is saying.

Here is what he says are some of Brooks' findings:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

 

[dandelion]

Presumably 'liberals' believe the state should impose higher taxes and spend it. Theyre voting for this to happen, for an equal contribution from everyone, whereas conservatives are voting for taxes to be removed and doing the giving as they feel like. So wouldn't you expect conservatives to do more giving? They believe in doing it that way. Someone put up some figures saying giving by the rich is 2% of their income, by the poor 4%. I presume the poor cannot afford 4%, and the rich would agree they cannot. Yet they give 2%. Either way, if the rich believe that 2% giving is enough, it isnt. systemically the US needs something more like 10%?

The figures which say religious people give more seems to suggest they too believe in big government, just a different commander in chief. If you strip out those with religious convictions, then how do the numbers look?

 

[deleted15807]

^ No. A lot of conservatives believe you are poor because you have moral deficiencies hence unworthy of aid. You may be poor and it's really your own fault.

 

[dandelion]

So if the US government puts a 99% capital tax on all households with wealth above $200,000, it would be the fault of the rich they were now poor?

I see a certain logic here. The rich presumably believe it would be their own fault if they allowed themselves to be taxed, so they have taken steps to prevent it.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Presumably 'liberals' believe the state should impose higher taxes and spend it. Theyre voting for this to happen, for an equal contribution from everyone, whereas conservatives are voting for taxes to be removed and doing the giving as they feel like. So wouldn't you expect conservatives to do more giving? They believe in doing it that way.

Not really an equal contribution from everyone, because all don't pay the same taxes. But whatever ...
In a sense, liberals and conservatives are acting in accord with how they think society should be run.
But given that government programs do not begin to fully deal with such issues as poverty (and both liberals and conservatives must know that), it is striking that conservatives are so much more generous.
(Conservatives are also more generous in Canada, where I live. I don't know the exact figures.)

Someone put up some figures saying giving by the rich is 2% of their income, by the poor 4%. I presume the poor cannot afford 4%, and the rich would agree they cannot. Yet they give 2%. Either way, if the rich believe that 2% giving is enough, it isnt. systemically the US needs something more like 10%?

Is the disjunction really between the rich and the poor, or between the rich and those of average income ... poor compared to the rich, but not poor in an absolute sense?

The figures which say religious people give more seems to suggest they too believe in big government, just a different commander in chief.

Haha.

If you strip out those with religious convictions, then how do the numbers look?

It would be interesting to see.

^ No. A lot of conservatives believe you are poor because you have moral deficiencies hence unworthy of aid. You may be poor and it's really your own fault.

Nonetheless, on average, they are more generous.

 

[KTF40]

Stop lying. You provided one link, saw a few words that you wanted to see and ran with it.



Trust me, you're not that deep of a thinker. If I made a wild guess, I'm sure I'd hit it right on the nail and you'd deny it.



Well, if you haven't paid attention the Bush Tax Cuts IS the thread topic. You're the one who came on this thread talking about states that are more charitable. It's almost as if you walked into a Star Trek Convention and in the middle of a discussion between whether or not Vulcans can have better sex than William Shatner, you stood up and yelled that you knew how to take a shit in a bucket. The similarities are glaring. But I digress, of course... I was trying to give you the benefit of a doubt, that you had an actual point that was somewhat related to the thread topic. Alas, just like your assumption of me being a fucking moron, I shouldn't have assumed that you can figure out when actual words or dog feces comes flying out of your hole. I guess everyone can make mistakes once in a while, eh?



Well, that doesn't prove anything except that you know how to swear. And we all know you're full of shit so that excrement will come out of any orifice on your body. We've come to expect that from you around here. But please, do continue.



Keep preaching the obvious, Aristotle.



Well, if I could self suck then I would be in porn. But I digress... it's wonderful to see that you're so desperate to piss me off that you're willing to embed a homophobic attack into your already politically bigoted nonsense. As if having a dick in my mouth is supposed to be a bad thing. You do realize telling that to a gay man doesn't really have the same impact as telling it to one of your boyfriends that you secretly want to blow, right? Of course not. Maybe if someone was sucking on your dick on a regular basis, you wouldn't even had to have resorted to such a ridiculous annotation?

But who'd fuck a dumbass like you?



*YAWN* You're gonna make this too easy for me, aren't ya?
First off, the ABC News article you sourced obtained opinions from a questionable person by the name of Arthur Brooks in 2006, based on findings he published in a book on the compassionate conservative around the same time, which was four years ago and before our current recession. If you weren't so busy looking for the usual "LIBERAL BAD" nonsense to post you may have been able to do your own research and put together a more accurate finding that reflects the current state of our nation. But no, you wanted to tell me to shut the fuck up instead. Brilliant.

You could have then used your own brain (instead of hiding behind the thoughts of a professor since you obviously don't have the cerebral capacity to come up with your own arguments) and created a refutal using a ranking of charitable states as of December 2009 like this one and also a chart of our country based on election results like this one. But no, you'd rather call me a fucking moron. Stellar.

You could have then looked at the lists of highest charitable states (based on percentage) and found that out of the five listed, THREE of them are Blue States as of the 2008 Election. You could have also looked at the second level and saw out of the 30 states listed, 19 out of 30 are Blue States as of the 2008 Election. And ironically in the lowest percentile, 8 out of the 14 states that are listed the majority of them were Red States as of the 2009 Election. That's contradictory to your "red states are more charitable than blue states" garbage of before and I didn't need to pay any website to read their articles in order to figure this out either... I mean, if that was really the thread discussion and I really cared at all what comes out of your mouth.

At this point you can take your political bigotry and get out my face. But I already know that you're foaming at the mouth to shoot down my counterargument only because the professor that's telling you what you want to hear has degrees and is printed on a major news website. Go ahead and assume it, formulate another ignorant response and make a fool of yourself some more. Adhere to that overplayed, LPSG politically bigoted script... that's what morons like you always do around here.

You didn't learn the last time you and I sparred on this board. I embarrassed you then and I'll have no problem doing it again. Now kindly, little boy, stay on topic or shut the fuck up.

This is the dumbest fucking post I've ever read on this forum. It's filled with lies, moronic assumptions, factually incorrect information, and a staggering amount of ignorance.

Your post isn't even worth a reply except for this pic. Have fun being a complete twat for the rest of your life.

 

[KTF40]

Presumably 'liberals' believe the state should impose higher taxes and spend it. Theyre voting for this to happen, for an equal contribution from everyone, whereas conservatives are voting for taxes to be removed and doing the giving as they feel like. So wouldn't you expect conservatives to do more giving? They believe in doing it that way.

This pretty much nails it and is basically the conclusion that the study I posted comes up with. It's only natural to expect Republicans to give back more than Democrats because of ideological differences, not necessarily one side is more compassionate than the other (although that conclusion could be argued as well I suppose).

But tell that to Dummyboy and he will flip a shit.

 

[KTF40]

Well, I haven't actually crunched numbers myself. However, here is a blog that addresses Brooks' book.

Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs from the blog:

So when I see that [Arthur Brooks] has got a new book out claiming that conservatives are more charitable than liberals, I'm naturally quite skeptical. My previous experience with Brooks has led me to believe that he is highly disingenuous and not beyond jimmying the numbers to fit his thesis.

So I checked the General Social Survey, one of his sources, to see if the raw data do indeed fit his thesis. What a surprise, they don't. In nearly every case, the GSS 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 trend is that liberals are more generous than conservatives.

I'm not going to completely dismiss everything the guy says, but it's worth noting that the author spends a whole paragraph stating how unreliable surveys can be, and then of course, uses a survey to dismiss some of the study's findings. Seems kind of hypocritical, but whatever.

But at least you posted some actual evidence that goes against the findings in the study instead of spouting off opinion backed up by nothing, even if the evidence isn't as advanced or well researched as done by the study, which is still a hell of a lot more than can be said for some people in this thread.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

This is the dumbest fucking post I've ever read on this forum. It's filled with lies, moronic assumptions, factually incorrect information, and a staggering amount of ignorance.

So the exit polls of CNN are now "lies"? Prove it.
The list of most charitable states for December 2009 are also lies? Prove that as well or STFU.

Arthur Brooks made his declarations in a similar fashion as I did. Beyond all of the extra research from various business & personal sources, he gathered a list of the most charitable states for certain years and coincided it with an electoral map from the most recent presidential election to draw conclusions based on the generosity of Liberals & Conservatives. Instead of arguing against a book with outdated stats, I did my own research using sources that you cannot (and will not) be able to discredit, coincided the two and did my own mathematical calculations. Is there anything wrong with my numbers? Or do you just like to hear yourself swear? Insinuating that things are still exactly the same as 2006, or would you like to join us in the current day and realize that frivolous statistics such as whether or not Democrats or Republicans are more charitable change more than your underwear?

You taunt me to come up with a refutal. And being that you're one of the most predictable sons of bitches on the board, as soon as I do you whine, bitch, yell, scream, throw a temper tantrum, curse more than Redd Foxx with Tourettes, and bellow other obscenities. Sorry, but THAT doesn't discredit my findings. They're more updated and more representative of the current atmosphere of our Nation. Stats from 2006 no longer apply here. Get the fuck over it, or find something more current to refute. Ranting like a little bitch who just got slapped by their cheerleader squad leader doesn't help you.

This is one of the many reasons why I'm content to call you one of the most blithering idiots of this forum. You weren't on my level last time you pulled this stunt, and you're sure as hell ain't on it now. You can kindly stop hugging on my nuts and go back to a well deserved forum obscurity.

 

[KTF40]

So the exit polls of CNN are now "lies"? Prove it.
The list of most charitable states for December 2009 are also lies? Prove that as well or STFU.

Arthur Brooks made his declarations in a similar fashion as I did. Beyond all of the extra research from various business & personal sources, he gathered a list of the most charitable states for certain years and coincided it with an electoral map from the most recent presidential election to draw conclusions based on the generosity of Liberals & Conservatives. Instead of arguing against a book with outdated stats, I did my own research using sources that you cannot (and will not) be able to discredit, coincided the two and did my own mathematical calculations. Is there anything wrong with my numbers? Or do you just like to hear yourself swear? Insinuating that things are still exactly the same as 2006, or would you like to join us in the current day and realize that frivolous statistics such as whether or not Democrats or Republicans are more charitable change more than your underwear?

You taunt me to come up with a refutal. And being that you're one of the most predictable sons of bitches on the board, as soon as I do you whine, bitch, yell, scream, throw a temper tantrum, curse more than Redd Foxx with Tourettes, and bellow other obscenities. Sorry, but THAT doesn't discredit my findings. They're more updated and more representative of the current atmosphere of our Nation. Stats from 2006 no longer apply here. Get the fuck over it, or find something more current to refute. Ranting like a little bitch who just got slapped by their cheerleader squad leader doesn't help you.

This is one of the many reasons why I'm content to call you one of the most blithering idiots of this forum. You weren't on my level last time you pulled this stunt, and you're sure as hell ain't on it now. You can kindly stop hugging on my nuts and go back to a well deserved forum obscurity.

God damn you're a moron. You think because I said your post was filled with lies that means I was automatically referring to some meaningless CNN poll you posted. Holy shit you're stupid. Of course it wasn't any of the other asinine statements you made in that post.

FWIW, your CNN poll is irrelevant. You're bundle link is irrelevant. If you had actually read the study and its findings, you would know exactly why Republican state governments would contribute less to charity than Democratic state controlled governments. But no, you're too much of lazy dumbass to do that, so you post these links as if you've somehow made a good point, but in reality only confirm the findings of the study and the line of thinking of people like Dandelion and myself.

Seriously, I've tried debating you respectfully before but you're incapable of it. You're worthless. You're stupid. You're posts are littered with hatred and vitriol that I've never seen in any other forum in all my years of posting. Your posts are disgusting. You're disgusting. You're pure fucking filth. You represent everything wrong with modern day liberalism. Matter of fact, it's people like you why liberals have begun to refer to themselves as progressives because they don't want to be associated with such an ugly and repulsive individual as yourself. You can continue to try and carry on this moronic discussion you want to have with me about Arthur Brooks or whatever the hell you want to talk about. I don't care and I'm not going to contribute anymore because you're too fucking stupid to have this discussion. I'm just gonna sit back and call you for what you are, a piece of shit and a stain on this forum.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You still talking, asshole?
The reason why you're not contributing is because YOU can't come up with anything to refute my rebuttal. You realize hiding behind statistics from a professor who wrote a book four years ago have little relevance to what's going on NOW in this country. And you're too fuckin' lazy and chicken shit to do your own research, source your own statistics and create your own similar theory.

If this was still 2006, then perhaps your "argument" would have some level of relevance. But it's 2010, shit for brains. The economy and political climate of this country has changed as well as the way people spend their money. Statistics that reflect these changes are imperative if you want ANYONE to think you know what the hell you're talking about. But of course, YOU DON'T, which is why you think equating me with what you find in the seat of your panties every night is substantial banter for a counterargument. All you can do is lob a series of fruitless, character degrading attacks, exposing more of your political bigotry and closeted homophobia in the process. After all of the tough talk, the pathetic declarations of "fact is fact" and the equally inane claims of "ignoring" you, this is what you've been reduced to with just one post. Fuckin' pathetic.

Seriously, little boy, It's best for you to ignore me because clearly you're not ready to talk to adults or debate like one. I would tell you to fuck off, but that requires a woman giving you some trim and you most certainly don't deserve to breed.

 

[KTF40]

You still talking, asshole?

As long as your big ugly forehead continues to pop in and respond to my posts, yes.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

As long as your big ugly forehead continues to pop in and respond to my posts, yes.

YAWN

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I'm not going to completely dismiss everything the guy says, but it's worth noting that the author spends a whole paragraph stating how unreliable surveys can be, and then of course, uses a survey to dismiss some of the study's findings. Seems kind of hypocritical, but whatever.

What the blogger is claiming is that Brooks, in interpreting the General Social Survey, doesn't even interpret it accurately.
I don't see how this is hypocritical.
You may be skeptical in principle of surveys, and yet feel that some ways of interpreting a given survey are valid, and some are not.

 

[KTF40]

What the blogger is claiming is that Brooks, in interpreting the General Social Survey, doesn't even interpret it accurately.
I don't see how this is hypocritical.
You may be skeptical in principle of surveys, and yet feel that some ways of interpreting a given survey are valid, and some are not.

Ah true true. That's a fair point. My bad.

 

[KTF40]

The reason why you're not contributing is because YOU can't come up with anything to refute my rebuttal. You realize hiding behind statistics from a professor who wrote a book four years ago have little relevance to what's going on NOW in this country. And you're too fuckin' lazy and chicken shit to do your own research, source your own statistics and create your own similar theory.

If this was still 2006, then perhaps your "argument" would have some level of relevance. But it's 2010, shit for brains. The economy and political climate of this country has changed as well as the way people spend their money. Statistics that reflect these changes are imperative if you want ANYONE to think you know what the hell you're talking about. But of course, YOU DON'T, which is why you think equating me with what you find in the seat of your panties every night is substantial banter for a counterargument. All you can do is lob a series of fruitless, character degrading attacks, exposing more of your political bigotry and closeted homophobia in the process. After all of the tough talk, the pathetic declarations of "fact is fact" and the equally inane claims of "ignoring" you, this is what you've been reduced to with just one post. Fuckin' pathetic.

Seriously, little boy, It's best for you to ignore me because clearly you're not ready to talk to adults or debate like one. I would tell you to fuck off, but that requires a woman giving you some trim and you most certainly don't deserve to breed.

Wait a second, you edited your post and wrote this entire rant after I had already responded to you? What the fuck is wrong is wrong with you? Why would you do that? Stop being a puss and editing your posts ever 3 seconds.

As for your continued argument, it is still irrelevant. Yes, irrelevant. If you weren't such a lazy slob, you could read the finding's of Brooks study or even Dandelion's post to realize your argument holds no weight. But whatever, if you don't want to take the time to educate yourself, that you're own fault. Feel free to keep posting links to the charitable contributions of state governments. They only continue to support my point and indirectly support the findings of the study. But of course, you're too much of a dumbshit to realize that.

And secondly, a word of advice. You need to take down your face pics in your gallery because you are without a doubt the ugliest fucking person on this forum. You're forehead's fucking huge, you have the facial expression of a retard, and you're whole complexion looks extremely ashy and dirty. You also look like a fucking rat. You know those little critters that crawl in the sewers, that's what you look like. You probably act like that too. And you look like you smell. You've got that look of a serious stink emanating from your body and it reeks in every single one of your posts. Take a shower you filthy rat.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Wait a second, you edited your post and wrote this entire rant after I had already responded to you?

No shit for brains, I was typing while you were.

What the fuck is wrong is wrong with you? Why would you do that? Stop being a puss and editing your posts ever 3 seconds.

You have one hour to edit a post. Just because you're too damn trigger happy and want to post a response as soon as you see three words is not my problem.

As for your continued argument, it is still irrelevant. Yes, irrelevant. If you weren't such a lazy slob, you could read the finding's of Brooks study or even Dandelion's post to realize your argument holds no weight. But whatever, if you don't want to take the time to educate yourself, that you're own fault. Feel free to keep posting links to the charitable contributions of state governments. They only continue to support my point and indirectly support the findings of the study. But of course, you're too much of a dumbshit to realize that.

You still don't get that your entire line of reasoning for this thread is irrelevant. In fact, you haven't made one post in this entire thread that has been on topic once.

And secondly, a word of advice. You need to take down your face pics in your gallery because you are without a doubt the ugliest fucking person on this forum. You're forehead's fucking huge, you have the facial expression of a retard, and you're whole complexion looks extremely ashy and dirty. You also look like a fucking rat. You know those little critters that crawl in the sewers, that's what you look like. You probably act like that too. And you look like you smell. You've got that look of a serious stink emanating from your body and reeks in every single one of your posts. Take a shower you filthy rat.

The day I would even remotely care what a supposed 100% straight man thinks about how I look will be the day he's sucking my dick. And trust me, you will never have that privilege.

 

[KTF40]

The day I would even remotely care what a supposed 100% straight man thinks about how I look will be the day he's sucking my dick. And trust me, you will never have that privilege.

I'm sure the only person who has that privilege is your father. And he is probably just as filthy and ashy as his piece of shit son.

Now I'll wait for you to edit your post.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'm sure the only person who has that privilege is your father. And I'm sure he is just as filthy and ashy as his piece of shit son.

Now I'll wait for you to edit your post.

Well, my father died when I was 6. Very classy of you to now involve my family into this mindless argument of yours. And trust me, your days here will be VERY numbered. So let it all out while you can.

BTW, what makes you think I haven't looked at or even sourced the book?