Skip to comments.Who Really Cares? (Conservatives give more than Liberals)
Posted on 11/27/2006 9:15:05 PM PST by Angel
One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. It is liberals who advocate "forgiveness" of loans to Third World countries, a "living wage" for the poor and a "safety net" for all.
But these are all government policies -- not individual acts of compassion -- and the actual empirical consequences of such policies are of remarkably little interest to those who advocate them. ...snip...
A new book, titled "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others. It is remarkable that beliefs on this subject should have become conventional, if not set in concrete, for decades before anyone bothered to check these beliefs against facts.
People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.
Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
It's because we don't want or expect the government to do it.
Soon to become the least reviewed book in the history of publishing.
"It's because we don't want or expect the government to do it."
There are a number of Dimocratz who would please me greatly by donating, at one instant, 8 pints of blood.
Symbolism is not substance
Feeling good is not doing good.
Sometimes you feel like a nut ...
Some people find it easy to be compassionate when they expect the compassion will be paid for by other people's money, extracted by taxes. Their own wallets stay shut: 'We gave ours to the tax man." Kind of like, "I gave at the office, AND SO SHOULD YOU. Or Else."
I believe that Libs can't donate their blood because they do to many drugs and pay for sex too often. The red cross isn't looking for blood with HIV, Hepatitis, Herpes, or Heroin in it!
By Danny Westneat
Seattle Times news columnist
Today, we toast what we have. For me, it's also a time to grapple with what I give.
You see, I just learned that I'm now one of the richest people on Earth. In fact, I'm among the top 1 percent of the globe's wealthiest people. I didn't score a fat inheritance. My dad was a professor, my mom a librarian. And they're both still gadding about, bent on squandering what little there ever was of our family estate.
No, I'm so rich, as are most of you, simply because I'm a middle-class American. If you make $50,000 a year or more, you're richer than 99 percent of the world.
I discovered this at a Web site called Global Rich List (globalrichlist.com). You enter your income and, using data from the World Bank, it ranks you like the Forbes 400. Except it's the Forbes Six Billion.
It's a broad measure. It makes no distinction between what it takes to buy a house in Seattle versus, say, Sudan. But it's eye-opening anyway.
It made me wonder: What am I doing with this wealth?
The motto over at the Gates Foundation is "To whom much has been given, much is expected." So when it comes to charity, am I at all up to par?
I've been donating 2 to 3 percent of my income, say my tax returns. That seems an embarrassingly low amount, now that I see it on paper. Yet it's about the Washington state average for my middle-high income bracket.
Average is OK. Except it turns out this is one stingy state.
There are a spate of new reports out ranking the states on charitable giving. Even though we boast the biggest giver of all, Bill Gates, collectively we are scarcely more benevolent than Scrooge.
Boston's Catalogue for Philanthropy uses tax-return data to judge how much we give relative to how much we have. Washington is a rich state — we were 13th last year in income. But on the "generosity index," even counting all the manna from Gates, we came in 31st.
We look even worse when you consider total wealth, says San Francisco's New Tithing Group. Accounting for income, estate size and cost of living, Washington ranks a lowly 39th in generosity. Only 11 states are tighter with donations.
The folks at the Catalogue for Philanthropy were so surprised at the disparity between Washington's wealth and its charity that they helped open a branch here, in Bellingham, to try to jumpstart the region's relatively skimpy giving.
Who gives the biggest slice of their wealth? The red states. In one ranking, Arkansas was most generous. In the other, it was Utah. Places like Mississippi and Oklahoma consistently rate high.
It may be the church factor, writes George McCully, president of the Catalogue for Philanthropy. The "tithing evangelical Protestants" of the Bible Belt are such prodigious givers "it suggests the wealthiest taxpayers in the wealthy states can afford to give significantly more."
I've never thought of myself as wealthy. Definitely never, ever wanted to emulate the Bible Belters.
Maybe when it comes to charity, it's time to start.
Danny Westneat's column appears Thursday and Sunday.
Reach him at 206-464-2086 or email@example.com.
In fact there is absolutely nothing stopping Soros, Lewis, and all the other lib multi-billionaires getting together with all the Hollyweird multi-millionaires and helping all the people they say need helping. How about it libs? How about setting up funds using all your accumulated wealth to help all those you say need help. After all it would be another thing that could make you feel good about your smug selves.
Liberals are generally much more charitable with other peoples' money.
Spending other people's hard-earned money, not their own.
Thanks for posting this article. I wish this would get wider coverage, but of course it doesn't fit the agenda.
An article by John Stossel on the findings of this study/book:
Not surprising at all. Of course, when I posted this info on the Knight Ridder message forum I used to post on, I was insulted and ridiculed by the resident Angry Left...but more on that later.
A well deserved BTTT...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.