Thread: Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419.html

Some excerpts...

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.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least,"

Wow. Liberals care less about the downtrodden than conservatives. Who knew? ...I did, because I remember this piece by Deroy Murdock that reported that 3 states have a Higher Optional Tax but few liberals pay into it.

From my mac's built in dictonary,
Hypocrisy:
noun ( pl. -sies) the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Kramer

Strawman argument.

You have (apparently) defined "charitable donations" as your metric for "caring" - and pat conservatives on the back for it without acknowledging that "charitable giving" is strongly supported by ideological conservativism to begin with.

You are quite right that this fellow is likely to enjoy his 15 minutes of fame, particularly with the the talk-radio set.

Btw, higher levels of personal donations to charity is not a particularly good metric of measuring actual 'care for the unfortunate' for a variety of reasons:

1. 'Caring for the unfortunate' ultimately defies measurement since it is a squishy human thing and not amendable to quantification.

2. Charitable donations are not the only way that 'care' can given, or 'care' can be expressed, towards the unfortunate. Social policies or social programs may also be used for as a vehicle for this purpose. Direct personal efforts may also be highly expressive of 'care for the unfortunate'. This definition precludes these possibilities.

3. Charitable donations include religious donations and since conservatives claim a majority of 'church-goers' as supporters, as such, conservatives ought to be expected to show higher levels of charitable donations (on average) for this reason.

of course conservatives give me look all the damn pork we did in the last congress

we should be ashamed and get back to the heartless cutting slashing small goverment conservatives we are...

I sure hate the new crop of spending republican apeasers UGHHHH

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Strawman argument.

I fail to see how its a strawman argument. The author has presented his findings from his research.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

You have (apparently) defined "charitable donations" as your metric for "caring" - and pat conservatives on the back for it without acknowledging that "charitable giving" is strongly supported by ideological conservativism to begin with.

To the contrary, it has been liberals chastising conservatives for their reluctance to pay more taxes for social programs that has defined my metric. As well as the fact that liberals when presented with the option of voluntarily paying more of their own money to the government, don't. See my other link below.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

You are quite right that this fellow is likely to enjoy his 15 minutes of fame, particularly with the the talk-radio set.

Those weren't my words. But I do agree with them.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Btw, higher levels of personal donations to charity is not a particularly good metric of measuring actual 'care for the unfortunate' for a variety of reasons:

1. 'Caring for the unfortunate' ultimately defies measurement since it is a squishy human thing and not amendable to quantification.

2. Charitable donations are not the only way that 'care' can given, or 'care' can be expressed, towards the unfortunate. Social policies or social programs may also be used for as a vehicle for this purpose. Direct personal efforts may also be highly expressive of 'care for the unfortunate'. This definition precludes these possibilities.

3. Charitable donations include religious donations and since conservatives claim a majority of 'church-goers' as supporters, as such, conservatives ought to be expected to show higher levels of charitable donations (on average) for this reason.

If higher levels of personal charitable donations aren't a measure of personal caring for the less fortunate, then I don't know what is in the book of liberalisim.

And perhaps you didn't see this link:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/228827_tax17.html

It is a piece by Deroy Murdock that notes in 3 states, there is an optional higher tax so that the 'good and anoited' can pay more of their own money. But in the piece, it points out that extremely few democrats opt to pay the higher tax.

In my book, this is hypocrisy to the max. As well as the findings in the first article where it points out that conservatives give more to charity.



And by the way, if you are disturbed by the author's findings as well as what Murdock has noted, why don't you and other liberals push for a national federal Higher Optional Tax where the money generated by this tax will be 100% used to strengthen current federal social programs?
Don't you think this is a good idea given that half the population is democrat AND that blue states are generally more wealthy than red state? Or are you afraid that it will become common knowledge after a few years that the program would end up a dismal failure and thereby discrediting liberals as phonies when it comes to claiming to care more for the downtrodden?

By the way, if we did have a federal optional Higher Optional Tax, I would like it if it had options on where your extra money could go to. For example, I wouldn't mind giving extra money to help sick babies and children get better hospital care (as long as they were legal citizens). And an option for you to pay for sick babies and children of illegal citizens if you want. What is wrong with this idea of optional higher taxes to help the downtrodden?

Kramer

Originally Posted by kramer

By the way, if we did have a federal optional Higher Optional Tax, I would like it if it had options on where your extra money could go to. For example, I wouldn't mind giving extra money to help sick babies and children get better hospital care (as long as they were legal citizens). And an option for you to pay for sick babies and children of illegal citizens if you want. What is wrong with this idea of optional higher taxes to help the downtrodden?

Kramer

All that would result in is your money being wasted. Why go through an inefficient bureaucracy when a private charitable organization will be able to distribute you donation relatively quickly and without wasting as much of it. You could donate to a children's hospital, which will graciously accept your donation and put it to good use, or you could give it to the government who will waste half of it while trying to figure out what to do with it.

Private donations directly help those in need

The book hasn't even been released to the public yet. Ya think maybe we should have a chance to actually read it before we decide if it has any real merit?

"religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income"

I have no doubt that's true.

I'd be willing to bet, though, that liberals who volunteer to work at homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. far outnumber conservatives.

Conservatives don't want to get their hands dirty...