Conservatives Are More Generous Then Libs

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, Nov 18, 2006.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    More proof libs are all talk and little action. Libs love to talk about how society needs to take care of the "poor" but they want to do it with OPM - Others Peoples Money


    Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous, Will Media Notice?

    Posted by Noel Sheppard on November 17, 2006 - 21:12.
    A book written by a highly-regarded philanthropy expert and Syracuse University professor providing statistical evidence that conservatives donate more money to charities than liberals regardless of income has just been published. As reported by Beliefnet.com (h/t to Drudge, emphasis mine throughout):

    Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

    The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

    In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

    The article continued:

    When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "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."

    You would think this guy was a devout Republican, right? Think again: “For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, ‘I have no comfortable political home.’"

    What are Brooks’ qualifications:

    Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

    Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

    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.

    Brooks seems well-prepared for the criticism he is going to face for his findings:

    His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

    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.

    The article continued:

    Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

    Brooks seems almost embarrassed about his findings:

    "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

    Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

    Brooks has gotten an endorsement from an unlikely source:

    Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

    "His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

    Shocking stuff. Of course, it will be fascinating to see whether this book gets any attention from a media that will certainly not believe any of its findings.

    http://newsbusters.org/node/9156
     
  2. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
    By Frank Brieaddy
    Religion News Service

    SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

    The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

    In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

    The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

    When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "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."

    For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

    Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

    Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

    One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

    Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

    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.

    His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

    His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

    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.

    Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
    All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

    "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

    Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

    In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

    Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

    Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

    "His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

    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.

    "I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

    http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
     
  3. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    IS this really a job? He seriously makes a living doing this? Wow.

    However, his analysis makes sense. Conservatives are all about personal responsibility; liberals are all about personal entitlement and "rights." Conservatives are about stepping up to he plate, and liberals are about making the plate more comfortable for their own particular stance and batting style. No surprise that these attitudes are carried over into charitable donations. Conservatives give because it is "good"; liberals might give if there is something in it for them.


    (These are generalizations. Yes, I realize that there are SOME liberals who give out of "goodness," and SOME conservatives who are selfish and greedy.)
     
  4. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    For the most part - libs believe good intentions are more importnat then actual results

    Also, for the most part, libs believe NOTHING can be accomplished unless the funding comes fromt he Federal government
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Good point----libs don't actually like giving thier own money--they prefer to redistribute other peoples' money.

    generally !!!!
     
  6. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572


    Better known as OPM....................

    Other Peoples Money
     
  7. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    NFS.........

    I better not translate that........You all can figure it out, I'm sure....

    Ok the middle word is friggen...........:teeth:
     
  8. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Pretty good analysis.

    I think it's yet another window onto liberal hypocrisy. They want integration, but not for their kids. Guns taken away, but not from their bodyguards. A clean environment, but not by their limo.
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Libs also believe tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate but taking 30% or more from their paychecks is compassionate........
     
  10. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    This is nothing new, its always been like this.

    Liberals dont care about being generous unless its with someone elses money.
     

Share This Page