Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As other posters have mentioned, most of the "giving" in conservative areas is to churches. When I prepared tax returns, our more "liberal" clients gave to non-profits, like NPR, Habitat for humanity, etc.
Conservatives gave almost exclusively to churches. The richest of our clients often were the stingiest, some giving less than $100 with incomes of close to a million. Other were barely making enough to survive and regularly gave to their church.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
It's an itemizable deduction - giving to any nonprofit is. Tithing is the only way Mississippi could come out as #1 on any financial scale, seems to me.
The OP's quoted article backs this up: "Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class."
I think someone already quoted this from the article: "It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives."
It's nice to learn that Republicans, who as the OP quotes "try to cut health benefits for children," are actually a generous, open-hearted lot. Funny that this had to be brought to our attention, like news. But the reason we have government-sponsored security nets is so the less fortunate dont have to depend on the tides of charity.
More right-wing yuletide lies. Why does Arthur Brooks leave Moderates out of his analysis? There are data for them. Of course, if you do include moderates, it will turn out that the differences between Moderates and both Liberals and Conservatives are statistically significant, but the difference between Liberals and Conservatives becomes ephemeral. It's actually Moderates who are the cheapskates, and those who feel strongly in either direction who tend to give more...
Funny thing is it was a Liberal that wrote this piece........
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 20, 2008
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Funny thing is it was a Liberal that wrote this piece........
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 20, 2008
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Because liberals are capable of self examination and self criticism.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: December 20, 2008
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
First of all I object to retarded attacks of political parties. If you've got a problem with the behavior, site the behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with liberals anymore than there is something inherently wrong with conservatives. You're dishonest and I lose respect on those grounds.
Secondly, liberals attack my conservative ideas, conservatives attack my liberal ideas, and I'm factually neither. I suspect liberals, similar to my own behavior, are being labeled as less than charitable when in fact I've rarely taken advantage or advertised my charities. Many years went by in my 20's where it wasn't worth my time to file a long form to get a deduction because I owned nothing. Does the fed EZ form allow for that now? It never did before. I've been ineligible for the EZ form for a while now so I'm clueless.
Others (like myself) don't advertise their charitable giving on principle. How can I prove charity when it's time/ labor donated or $$ in a salvation army pot? Just yesterday I posted in a military based thread that my pet charity is DAV. I've never mentioned that publicly EVER. I'm not fishing for validation or brownie points with life choices. I'm religious and don't proselytize as well. I'm against that equally and don't require anyone to prop up my faith.
I expect that the levels of taxation I've been subjected to the past 20+yrs have subsidized much charitable cause and use the rest of my $$$ donated to focus more on what falls through the cracks of large organizations. I've also historically donated to scholarship funds, local causes, national causes to preserve democracy, and specific neighbors I knew to be falling through the cracks of social welfare. I've done my best to help them unobtrusively (a lesson from Buddhists even if I'm not one) by delivering that grace and favor behind the scenes so as not to embarrass or oblige them to me. I'm not in it for the limelight. Most of my charitable contributions didn't involve a receipt, nor have I depended on that system.
That said, regardless of political affiliation, charities are very much in need of everyones help. I posted a thread yesterday if anyone is interested in hearing about the details.
Originally Posted by cuebald THE NEW YORK TIMES!????
Whio believes anything in THAT liberal piece of crap newspaper?
Get a real source if you want to post.
Sorry.
That's usually the next post I see when anyone uses the NYT as a source.
I figured I'd get it out of the way early and save my conservative friends the trouble of having to repeat themselves...
I agree-- it's all nuts. As if FOX speaks for real conservatives (because traditional conservatives despise FOX) and FOX= NYT. Gibberish. Party foundation statements need specification and a clear statement needs to be made when individuals step out of line with that party. I doubt bush would be allowed to hide behind the cloak of american, conservative, religious, or republican had they known his true stripes. He's none of the above and a perfect illustration of this penchant people have of deflecting personal responsibility by hiding behind affiliations wrongfully.
How the hell do art museums, symphonies and schools "cater to the well off"? Last I knew just about all the population benefits from these institutions. I have taken all my kids to the museums in Chicago and we are not "well off". And the reason that conservatives give more blood is because the Red Cross generally has drives at places where conservatives tend to be. They don't go to factories or other places because the workers will not be allowed the time to donate blood. They go to office buildings where management types work because those folks can leave the office for an hour to donate. If the Red Cross went to any factory or retail store in the USA and the management let the workers have 30 mins to donate blood- staggered throughout the day- I bet 50% or more would do so.
Well I tried to give blood until they told me that they don't want my gay blood for safety reasons. Yup, been in a relationship with the same person for years, only have had intercourse with three people in my life and I can't give blood. Meanwhile they gladly took blood from my friend who is a bit of a s***. I know of at least 10 different girls he has had sex with. Three of which I know he had no condom.
The Generosity Index is a complete fraud, which even its producers (The Catalogue for Philanthropy) will admit. The sole purpose that they claim for this index is to stimulate discussion about charitable giving. Their actual methodology is so full of holes as to be worthless in any descriptive sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
