Conservatives are more generous than liberals

[billvon 3,070]

>So can we then discern that people who vote for Bush are psychotic?

In my personal experience, people who voted for Bush are no more (or less) psychotic than average, and religious conservatives are no more or less generous than liberals. But that's no fun.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So can we then discern that people who vote for Bush are psychotic?

certainly one can discern whatever makes them feel all fuzzy, I'm sure that fits your personal view of the world

I'd say that those without knowledge of current events will tend to vote for the incumbent regardless of the party of the candidate.

alternatively, one could argue that very public liberals don't take care of their own as a matter of political philosophy, so they institutionalize their families more readily to avoid responsibility (won't someone ELSE take care of them). thus those institutionalized are resentful of their captors and vote to spite them. this is also more fun than my first theory.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Interesting snippet...thanks

As for the deal with Kerry - you have to do a lot more research, when the issue changes every week/poll/speech....

Yes, as opposed to reading about Teddy Roosevelt and Hoover and using that as a contemporary guideline.

Not to mention Marx/Lenin, hmm?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Did anyone catch John Stossel on 20/20 last night?

Here's a promo column:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Quote

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.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

"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.

and this is a surprise?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

"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.

and this is a surprise?

I'd be prepared to bet that almost all of those disagreeing with the statement are quite able to take care of themselves.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'd be prepared to bet that almost all of those disagreeing with the statement are quite able to take care of themselves.

glad to see you going out on a limb there - IMO you're on an unrelated tangent

those that need charity likely don't really care where it comes from as long as it comes

but this is about those that CAN give and whether they'd do it VOLUNTARILY and if that correlates with certain personal views of the responsibilities of government (and I think automatically labeling as 'liberal' someone that defaults to government control of this kind of thing does a real disservice to the term liberal, and the term conservative, for that matter)

What do you think of those that are 'quite able to take care of themselves' that don't give to charity but think it should be involuntary - i.e., a basic responsibility of government through taxation or other legal enforcement?

What do you think of those that can't really afford it and yet STILL give to charity through voluntary means?

stereotypes would label the first person a 'liberal' and the second one 'conservative' but it's really about what kind of individual they are......

for those that think INVOLUNTARY contribution to charity is only a 'left wing' injustice, don't forget that one version of INVOLUNTARY contribution is also via the social pressure in the church to "Tithe" 10% or whatever (it's voluntary, but in some places not really)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"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.

and this is a surprise?

I'd be prepared to bet that almost all of those disagreeing with the statement are quite able to take care of themselves.

That might shed some light on why "people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income", than the wealthy.

Here's another kicker:

Quote

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."

[pirana 0]

A no brainer. They give because they have more to give.

Next question please.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[NCclimber 0]

I post:

Quote

"people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income", than the wealthy.

And you reply with

Quote

They give because they have more to give.

I'm not sure I follow.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

A no brainer. They give because they have more to give.

Next question please.

A guy I know gave $120Million to charity. He is a billionaire, of course.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A guy I know gave $120Million to charity. He is a billionaire, of course.

well, you can't count that, then. The selfish bastard

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.

San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.

San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.

But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

Researching his book, "Who Really Cares" (LINK: http://www.arthurbrooks.net/), Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. 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."

Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.

The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.

Says Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."

We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.

Note that Brooks said the "working" poor. The nonworking poor -- people on welfare -- are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don't give much at all.

What about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, when compared to both the rich and working poor in America, Brooks says, "They give less."

When asked why, many say, "I don't have enough money to spare." But it's telling that the working poor manage to give.

And the rich? What about America's 400 billionaires? I'll report on them in next week's column.

Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.

But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?

"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.

Another myth bites the dust.