Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:01 AM
 
1,062 posts, read 1,017,090 times
Reputation: 402

Advertisements

Conservative Voters Are More Liberal With Charity - Prospecting - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas

And another different study that shows the same results. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:02 AM
 
5,715 posts, read 15,027,395 times
Reputation: 2949
Default The story of the Good Samaritan comes to mind again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MainelyJersey View Post
Who Really Cares • Arthur C. Brooks (http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/statistics.html - broken link)

Interesting study. Finds that conservatives households give about 30% more to charity than liberal households. Also, conservatives give more blood, literally.

I wonder, is the author a "conservative" ????

I haven't read the book and I'm not going to run out and purchase it, but I wonder if he looks at what types of charities they GIVE to?

Do the "conservatives" give mostly to their religious "charities"?

I've been around church circles for more than 20 years and have much experience with the true charitable nature of christians...

and, as a christian,... I've actually worked with a street ministry where we actually "fed the homeless"...

It's really interesting when you're out there doing street ministry. You really get to see the "hearts" of some of the people who volunteer to help out... and give charitably.

You really get to know their hearts on these forums, too.

Last edited by World Citizen; 02-19-2010 at 10:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,762,991 times
Reputation: 3550
Considering that those who identify as conservative outnumber those who are liberal I think the results will be biased towards Conservatives when it comes to charitable giving.

We can all throw out our little anecdotes about how we're liberal/conservative and we give to this and that charity.

I could personally care less about a person's political leanings when it comes to charity, just as long as we have people out there giving to charity.


On this board though, you wouldn't really know Conservatives are charitable and giving. "Get a job! Get your own dam* health care" and "The poor are LEECHES!" doesn't sound all that charitable to me. Just sayin'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,915,122 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
"We liberals do not necessarily like to have to use Government money" -- that's true. We wish people would take it upon themselves to be kind and good to each other on macro- and micro-scales and improve this country and make it the best it can be all on their own.

But they dont. Why not? Because they're SELFISH.
And since people are selfish, and want to spend the money they've earned the way they want to spend it, most likely to better their own life, or that of their family & friends, you think it's ok to take that money from them and spend it the way the you wish they would, to better the lives of some unknown person on the other side of the state, country, or even world.
You want to take what one person has earned and give it to someone else who has not been as successful an earner. And the more you do this, the more you reinforce the notion that it's no big deal to not succeed or to earn enough to support yourself or your family, that if you don't have enough, big government will come along and feed you with what they stole from the guy across town who DID succeed. You want to punish the successful and reward the unsuccessful. I disagree wth the very premise. I think that those who make more money SHOULD be able to have better things, SHOULD be able to; drive a nicer car, live in a bigger house, eat better food, attend better schools, and yes, even have access to better heath care. The desire to have better things, to provide for your family, to care for them when they are sick, to send them to good schools has been, and should continue to be, a great motivational force that encourages people to strive to success. No one should be secure in the belief that they need worry about nothing because big government is there to give them all they need, to prop them up and make sure they have everything that the rich family up the street has. I contend that a nation of people "selfishly" striving to provide for themselves & their families will be far more prosperous, far more productive, and far more successful, than a nation that take from the successful and gives to the unsuccessful.

Last edited by Bill Keegan; 02-19-2010 at 10:18 AM.. Reason: Fixed a bunch of typos. probably still missed a few
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:11 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,090,038 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
And since people are selfish, and want to spend the money they've earned the way they want to spend it, most likely to better their own life, or that of their family & friends, you think it's ok to take that money from them and spend it the way the you wish they would, to better the lives of some unknown person on the other side of the state, country, or even world.
You want to take what one person has earned and give it to someone else who has not been as successful an earner. And the morte you do this, the more you reinforce the notuin that it's not big deal to not succeed or to earn enough to support yourself or your family, that if you don't have enouogh, big government will come along and feed you with what they stole from the guy across town who DID succeed. You want to pusish the successful and reward the unsuccessful. I disagree wth the very premise. I think that those who make more money SHOULD be able to have better things, SHOULD be able to; drive a nicer car, live in a bigger house, eat better food, attend better schools, and yes, even have access to better heath care. The desire to have better things, to provide for your family, to care for them when they are sick, to send them to good schools has been, and should continue to be, a great motivational force that encourages people to strive to success. No one should be secure in the belief that they need worry about nothing because big government is there to give them all they need, to prop them up and make sure they have everything that the rich family up the street has. I contend that a nation of people "selfishly" striving to provide for themselves & their families will be far more prosperous, far more productive, and far more successful, than a nation that take from the successful and gives to the unsuccessful.
Thanks for reinforcing my point
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:12 AM
 
418 posts, read 486,804 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre57 View Post
If you have not guessed by now, I am liberal and staunch democrat.

Pinning a party label? LOL, I don't have to do that, but I can point to the right wing inadequacies all day long of people who say to me, don't lump conservatives with republicans because it's soooo easy to do, they are the NO party, except when it benefits them, and they are only conservatives when it benefits them, or their pet project.

If it (some bill or resolution) benefits the AMERICAN PUBLIC but it costs the Government money to let's say put people to work, or to keep people from losing their homes or jobs, then people called CONSERVATIVES crawl out of the woodwork like roaches, and strongly oppose it.

We liberals do not necessarily like to have to use Government money to do certain things such as avoiding a depression, but it is and was a necessity for which the right/conservative movement has shown much displeasure. Doing something beat out just doing nothing.
False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. 'I'm conservative', 'I'm liberal', 'I'm conservative'. Bull****! Be a ****ing person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some **** I'm conservative about, I've got some **** I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal!" -Chris Rock
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,915,122 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Thanks for reinforcing my point
Thanks for not bothering to deny that you are in favor of redistributing wealth and punishing those who have been successful, dragging them down instead of pushing the unsuccessful up, in an effort to make the world "equal".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:24 AM
 
5,715 posts, read 15,027,395 times
Reputation: 2949
The "conservatives" called FDR a socialist when he was in office.

Today, historians realize that he, in fact, saved the capitalist system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,321,515 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen View Post
The "conservatives" called FDR a socialist when he was in office.

Today, historians realize that he, in fact, saved the capitalist system.
Economists feel WWII saved us, not FDR's policies. They feel it prolonged the Depression.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2010, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,321,515 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
Thanks for not bothering to deny that you are in favor of redistributing wealth and punishing those who have been successful, dragging them down instead of pushing the unsuccessful up, in an effort to make the world "equal".
A two class system is what third world countries have. No middle class.
That is the direction the US is going.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top