Conservatives Are More Generous Then Libs

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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
 

Nienna

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
4,515
Reaction score
334
Points
83
Location
Ohio
Brooks is a behavioral economist ...
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.)
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
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
Good point----libs don't actually like giving thier own money--they prefer to redistribute other peoples' money.

generally !!!!
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Good point----libs don't actually like giving thier own money--they prefer to redistribute other peoples' money.

generally !!!!


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

Other Peoples Money
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
Better known as OPM....................

Other Peoples Money
NFS.........

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

Ok the middle word is friggen...........:teeth:
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
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.
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.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Libs also believe tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate but taking 30% or more from their paychecks is compassionate........
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
This is nothing new, its always been like this.

Liberals dont care about being generous unless its with someone elses money.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
But it is nice to see a liberal Professor actually admitting the truth

I wonder if his house will be fire bombed by the peaceful and tolerant left?
 

CharlestonChad

Baller Deluxe
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
126
Points
48
Location
Charleston, SC
. Conservatives give because it is "good"; liberals might give if there is something in it for them.
You were on a roll until this idiot babble. Did you ever consider these:

1. The average incomes of both peoples, which the higher income means more charity to give.

2. Tax breaks for donations!
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
You were on a roll until this idiot babble. Did you ever consider these:

1. The average incomes of both peoples, which the higher income means more charity to give.

2. Tax breaks for donations!


Point is CC, even when they have the money - libs do NOT give!

Libs are consistent when they ignore what they lecture the rest of us to do
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
You were on a roll until this idiot babble. Did you ever consider these:

1. The average incomes of both peoples, which the higher income means more charity to give.

2. Tax breaks for donations!
So youre saying that Liberals wouldnt take advantage of tax breaks? Are you saying liberals are all dirt poor? Thats a bunch of bull. Liberals are the elite snobs of our society. Its not a coincidence that the rich city folk are liberal. Its not a coincidence that liberal leadership has far more money than the conservatives.

Why the heck do you think liberals try to penalize those who succeed in making their own money? They try to penalize them because they already have their money and they are trying to keep more people from getting wealthy and diluting their power.

I am sick and tired of hearing this BS myth that liberals are the poor and oppressed when they are the wealthy elites trying to protect their power and make other dependent on them. The fact is the conservative base are middle class Americans who just want the government to stay the hell out of their lives. We have no problem giving to worthy causes. Its a pleasure, even if its only five dollars we give far more than any liberal elitist gives. And we always will.
 

CharlestonChad

Baller Deluxe
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
126
Points
48
Location
Charleston, SC
So youre saying that Liberals wouldnt take advantage of tax breaks?
I was addressing the motives to give, which is bi-partisian.

Are you saying liberals are all dirt poor?
Nope, there are plenty of rich liberals. BUT I will state that the poorest in our country are almost soley liberal.

Thats a bunch of bull. Liberals are the elite snobs of our society.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Its not a coincidence that the rich city folk are liberal. Its not a coincidence that liberal leadership has far more money than the conservatives.
Do you have your own opinions, or just O'Reilly's?

Why the heck do you think liberals try to penalize those who succeed in making their own money? They try to penalize them because they already have their money and they are trying to keep more people from getting wealthy and diluting their power.
Conservatives love capitalism b/c the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Both groups want to have money and keep their money.

I am sick and tired of hearing this BS myth that liberals are the poor and oppressed when they are the wealthy elites trying to protect their power and make other dependent on them. The fact is the conservative base are middle class Americans who just want the government to stay the hell out of their lives.
If Conservatives are the middle class, then what are the lower class?

We have no problem giving to worthy causes. Its a pleasure, even if its only five dollars we give far more than any liberal elitist gives. And we always will.
Undocumented donations that cannot EVER be backed with actual evidence is the basis for your generalization of our political spectrum in relation to generosity. From where did you get your education?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
So youre saying that Liberals wouldnt take advantage of tax breaks? Are you saying liberals are all dirt poor? Thats a bunch of bull. Liberals are the elite snobs of our society. Its not a coincidence that the rich city folk are liberal. Its not a coincidence that liberal leadership has far more money than the conservatives.

Why the heck do you think liberals try to penalize those who succeed in making their own money? They try to penalize them because they already have their money and they are trying to keep more people from getting wealthy and diluting their power.

I am sick and tired of hearing this BS myth that liberals are the poor and oppressed when they are the wealthy elites trying to protect their power and make other dependent on them. The fact is the conservative base are middle class Americans who just want the government to stay the hell out of their lives. We have no problem giving to worthy causes. Its a pleasure, even if its only five dollars we give far more than any liberal elitist gives. And we always will.


Case In Point: You have Daryl Hannah sitting 40 feet above the ground in a large walnut tree. Folk singer Joan Baez and anti-logging activist Julia "Butterfly" Hill had also taken shifts in the tree; all to prevent the owner of the land from developing his own property.

Squatters have lived on the property for years and their have been calls to match the offer made from developers. The owner said OK - if they match the offer they can have the land

When asked if she would contribute to the fund, Ms Hanna said "I am not in a position to give"

What the hell does that mean? She wants everyone else to donate, but she feels she does not have to do the same

Oh, this is what this thread is all about! Libs being cheap while begging the rest of us for money
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top