Who gives more, liberals or conservatives?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 3:52 PM GMT
    A thread in another folder has become political, to little surprise dealing with the topic of this thread. I personally find both generous people and stingy people across the political spectrum. But when I hear statements that conservatives are greedy and stingy, I need to haul out references on this.

    http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
    We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers? Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give. Charity matters--not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Really Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2011/12/charitable-giving-liberals-vs.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 3:57 PM GMT
    Except... conservatives donate their money to conservative causes, not humanitarian ones. Having raped the economic system, they donate to extend their influence over the economy, not to actually help the distressed in need. The conservative goal is the continued disparity between the rich and the poor in the US, and the demise of the middle class. 1% of the US population already owns 40% of the wealth, but the greedy Republicans are not satisfied yet until their control cannot be challenged.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 3:58 PM GMT
    I think you should take a stand as well about people who say conservative compassion is white liberal blah-blah.


    You're wrong, there, Art my friend. That's a vast generalization that keeps getting you in the hot spot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 3:59 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidExcept... conservatives donate their money to conservative causes, not humanitarian ones. Having raped the economic system, they donate to extend their influence over the economy, not to actually help the distressed in need.

    From all that I have read, I don't believe this to be the case. Do your have any basis other than your own opinion?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:00 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    I think you should take a stand as well about people who say conservative compassion is white liberal blah-blah.

    Obviously I think it's a ridiculous thing to say. I think my question there implied as such. If he comes to this thread and makes similar comments, I will respond.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:01 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco saidExcept... conservatives donate their money to conservative causes, not humanitarian ones. Having raped the economic system, they donate to extend their influence over the economy, not to actually help the distressed in need.

    From all that I have read, I don't believe this to be the case. Do your have any basis other than our own opinion?

    Or you yours?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:04 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco saidExcept... conservatives donate their money to conservative causes, not humanitarian ones. Having raped the economic system, they donate to extend their influence over the economy, not to actually help the distressed in need.

    From all that I have read, I don't believe this to be the case. Do your have any basis other than our own opinion?

    Or you yours?

    From Amazon:
    The book uses data from many sources to prove that the one overwhelming predictor of generosity is religion. Political affiliation is almost irrelevent - the statistics for religious liberals and religious conservaties are identical. Religious people are statistically more likely to give than secularists (91% to 66%), and give more of their money (3.5 times more than secularists), are more likely to volunteer their time (67% to 44%), and volunteer more of their time (almost twice as much). The fact that the conservative population is more charitable than the liberal population is due to the fact that religious people tend to be politically conservative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:08 PM GMT

    Socal, we know many liberals that donate to charities and do all manner of volunteer work and they never speak of it. This makes such studies rather flawed, but the truth is, being charitable is pan-demographic across political lines.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:17 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidExcept... conservatives donate their money to conservative causes, not humanitarian ones. Having raped the economic system, they donate to extend their influence over the economy, not to actually help the distressed in need. The conservative goal is the continued disparity between the rich and the poor in the US, and the demise of the middle class. 1% of the US population already owns 40% of the wealth, but the greedy Republicans are not satisfied yet until their control cannot be challenged.


    I see you are back to causing trouble once again Colonel... If you continue with your broad , false, generalizations of people who have a different political view than you, I fear you will once again find yourself in hot water.
    Isnt that exactly what YOU do? LMAO..icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:19 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidExcept... conservatives donate their money to conservative causes, not humanitarian ones. Having raped the economic system, they donate to extend their influence over the economy, not to actually help the distressed in need. The conservative goal is the continued disparity between the rich and the poor in the US, and the demise of the middle class. 1% of the US population already owns 40% of the wealth, but the greedy Republicans are not satisfied yet until their control cannot be challenged.


    I see you are back to causing trouble once again Colonel... If you continue with your broad , false, generalizations of people who have a different political view than you, I fear you will once again find yourself in hot water.



    Not nearly as hot as the water you're already in Mr Liar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:20 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Socal, we know many liberals that donate to charities and do all manner of volunteer work and they never speak of it. This makes such studies rather flawed, but the truth is, being charitable is pan-demographic across political lines.

    I don't think personal experience makes the studies flawed. Conservatives also do things and never speak of them. That fact that it is influenced by religion shows that is more directly related than politics, but as the Amazon synapsis indicates, because religious people tend to be politically conservative to a greater extent, that is what influences the study.

    There is no causal relationship assumed, so the studies should be taken for what they are. I personally don't think about political affiliation associated with generosity, but when statements such as those in the other thread are made, I can haul out the guns to shoot holes in that argument.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    "I personally don't think about political affiliation associated with generosity, but when statements such as those in the other thread are made, I can haul out the guns to shoot holes in that argument."


    I agree, but think it better to not answer with the same too-broad strokes that you don't like to see being done to conservatives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:25 PM GMT
    meninlove said"I personally don't think about political affiliation associated with generosity, but when statements such as those in the other thread are made, I can haul out the guns to shoot holes in that argument."

    I agree, but think it better to not answer with the same too-broad strokes that you don't like to see being done to conservatives.

    But the big difference is I did not make any incendiary comments without providing any basis. I responded only with facts, and presented them in a completely non-confrontational way, even when responding to the baiting comments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:31 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said"I personally don't think about political affiliation associated with generosity, but when statements such as those in the other thread are made, I can haul out the guns to shoot holes in that argument."

    I agree, but think it better to not answer with the same too-broad strokes that you don't like to see being done to conservatives.

    But the big difference is I did not make any incendiary comments without providing any basis. I responded only with facts, and presented them in a completely non-confrontational way, even when responding to the baiting comments.



    lol, yes more subtle, but done without thinking about what extremely generous and charitable liberals on here would feel.

    The only reason these studies are there is because some people talk about their generosity; many however don't. It's a magnificent obsession, so to speak.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:39 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said"I personally don't think about political affiliation associated with generosity, but when statements such as those in the other thread are made, I can haul out the guns to shoot holes in that argument."

    I agree, but think it better to not answer with the same too-broad strokes that you don't like to see being done to conservatives.

    But the big difference is I did not make any incendiary comments without providing any basis. I responded only with facts, and presented them in a completely non-confrontational way, even when responding to the baiting comments.


    lol, yes more subtle, but done without thinking about what extremely generous and charitable liberals on here would feel.

    The only reason these studies are there is because some people talk about their generosity; many however don't. It's a magnificent obsession, so to speak.

    I don't see that any generous person should feel slighted by a study. After all, assuming the methodologies are correct, a study is only a report on reality.

    Another point comes to mind that has relevance in all the political threads. I find liberals to be angrier in general. As shown in this thread, when you have facts and logic on your side, you don't need to be angry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:45 PM GMT



    Hmmm....except that the studies are flawed - it's like asking all gay men to state they are gay. Many won't, so it appears there are less than there are.

    As for liberals being angry, off-hand I can immediately think of several conservatives on RJ that claim they are not, but post excessively angry posts, couched in terms to make it appear they are not.

    So really, it gets no one anywhere.

    Now facts are facts, and the simple fact is that being charitable, compassionate and kind knows no boundaries, and no one or group owns charity, compassion and kindness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 4:57 PM GMT
    meninlove said Hmmm....except that the studies are flawed - it's like asking all gay men to state they are gay. Many won't, so it appears there are less than there are. ...

    How can you make such a sweeping statement, because you don't care for the results? To say something is flawed, you need to have looked at the studies. Have you? Given the credentials of one of the study authors, Arthur Brooks, "a top scholar of economics and public policy, [who] has spent years researching this trend..." , it seems incredible you would make such a statement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 5:07 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said Hmmm....except that the studies are flawed - it's like asking all gay men to state they are gay. Many won't, so it appears there are less than there are. ...

    How can you make such a sweeping statement, because you don't care for the results? To say something is flawed, you need to have looked at the studies. Have you? Given the credentials of one of the study authors, Arthur Brooks, "a top scholar of economics and public policy, [who] has spent years researching this trend..." , it seems incredible you would make such a statement.



    The authors of such studies have only those volunteering information to base their studies on.

    Quite frankly, if a study came out saying liberals and those further left than liberals were more charitable I'd take exactly the same stance.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 5:15 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said Hmmm....except that the studies are flawed - it's like asking all gay men to state they are gay. Many won't, so it appears there are less than there are. ...

    How can you make such a sweeping statement, because you don't care for the results? To say something is flawed, you need to have looked at the studies. Have you? Given the credentials of one of the study authors, Arthur Brooks, "a top scholar of economics and public policy, [who] has spent years researching this trend..." , it seems incredible you would make such a statement.
    The authors of such studies have only those volunteering information to base their studies on.

    Quite frankly, if a study came out saying liberals and those further left than liberals were more charitable I'd take exactly the same stance. -Doug

    So you have reason to believe those hiding their charity have skewed the results. Have you looked at the questionnaires or examined the methodologies? Does not wanting to publicly announce charitable giving lead to hiding it on an private questionnaire? I think the real issue is many, especially liberals, tend to be averse to any type of study that indicates any sort of difference among any demographics. It's taking the "we're all the same" mantra to extremes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 5:18 PM GMT

    "Does not wanting to publicly announce charitable giving lead to hiding it on an private questionnaire?"

    Yes. I've been in volunteer work for years and can tell you there is an ethic involved when it comes to disclosure about good deeds, whether they be monetary or otherwise.

    Do I agree with this ethic of not speaking about it? No, not really, because, as I have told others, without mentioning it and keeping it private, others have no example to inspire them.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 5:22 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    "Does not wanting to publicly announce charitable giving lead to hiding it on an private questionnaire?"

    Yes. I've been in volunteer work for years and can tell you there is an ethic involved when it comes to disclosure about good deeds, whether they be monetary or otherwise.

    Do I agree with this ethic of not speaking about it? No, not really, because, as I have told others, without mentioning it and keeping it private, others have no example to inspire them.

    And you think the study authors, such as the Professor, were too clueless to take that into account or control for that? Was it even impossible for a questionnaire to ask if the respondents had any involvement that they could not describe?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 5:30 PM GMT
    Now don't be putting words into my mouth. Clueless is your word, not mine.


    As for Mr Brooks, his works are well known and also critiqued and there are flaws. Look up his studies about how the more religious are happier as an example.

    He's partisan. That needs to be taken into consideration in any study, whoever the author is.



  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 21, 2012 5:33 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco saidExcept... conservatives donate their money to conservative causes, not humanitarian ones. Having raped the economic system, they donate to extend their influence over the economy, not to actually help the distressed in need.

    From all that I have read, I don't believe this to be the case. Do your have any basis other than your own opinion?

    His basis is that he lives in a home and gets 3 hots a day.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Jan 21, 2012 5:36 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    As for Mr Brooks, his works are well known and also critiqued and there are flaws. Look up his studies about how the more religious are happier as an example.

    He's partisan. That needs to be taken into consideration in any study, whoever the author is.

    Actually what the study found out was that people who pray more are happier or more satisfied than others. It didn't matter who the person prays to, it's just the fact that the pray and that they believer in something larger than themselves.

    But that's not what this is about.

    Look at it this way, in the US, conservatives are far more likely to be white, high income earners. They have the ability to make monetary donations. Liberals (Democrats) are more likely to be minorities or women who have less free income to donate.

    This, statistically speaking, a conservative is more likely to donate more money per capita than a liberal. It is also known that religious people donate more, and they are more likely to be conservatives.

    I don't know about the 1% and their political leanings or their causes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 6:09 PM GMT
    commoncoll said...Look at it this way, in the US, conservatives are far more likely to be white, high income earners. They have the ability to make monetary donations. Liberals (Democrats) are more likely to be minorities or women who have less free income to donate. ...

    The studies have looked at percentage of income donated, as a partial control over income disparity. Not a complete control because higher income people have a greater percentage of disposable income, after paying necessities, so they can afford to give a larger percentage. Studies have looked at differences in volunteering time and donating blood. You can also make the case that the wealthier have more time, so they are in a position to volunteer, etc. Generally, if you look at all the studies, there are trends.