Skip to comments.Bleeding Heart Tightwads
Posted on 12/21/2008 5:52:27 AM PST by Amelia
This holiday season is a time to examine whos been naughty and whos been nice, but Im unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
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.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The generosity index from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It’s easy to give away OTHER people’s money.....is it any wonder Libs are gutless?
Note Barack Obama’s “charitable” contributions to the Congressional Black Caucus!
One reason I posted it is because it’s research by liberals validating what we’ve always thought.
I would include this:
Liberals donate more money in an attempt to gain power than they do to help the poor, needy and unfortunate among us.
That should tell you all you need to know about their true motives.
Progressives are compassionate, but only with other people’s money.
Does Obama really count political contributions as charitable contributions?
If you’re surprised and disappointed, Kristof, you’re even more a fool than I’d thought. Liberal equivalent of the Salvation Army? Ain’t none. Liberal Boy Scouts? Only in San Francisco, and they’re primarily engaged in scouting for more boys. Hell, the biggest charity in New York was the Democrat-donating Madoff Investment Securities LLC, hayna?
In light of our conversation on another thread: I wonder if liberals are less generous with their own contributions but because they figure they "give" through their taxes.
Yes, and it would have been far more honest for George W. Bush to run as a "Compassionate Progressive."
oops... “to *have* run”
Always the dig.
I suggest Freepers go to this author’s blog site and post a comment. No registration necessary.
I suggest you be respectful as it seems liberals cannot believe this study. Use it to tell them that conservatives are not uncaring, cold bastards.
That's because conservatives are all rich and can afford it, because they oppress and steal from liberals.
/insane liberal knee jerk reaction
fifteen or twenty five[I forgot which] cities with the worse poverty in the nation are all run by dems. They haven’t had a Republican administration since 1962. I wish I could find that study.
The Bidens and the Obamas are walking examples of charitable stinginess
Two presumptious hypocrites
Now zerO is calling for everyone to do a “day of service” on the MLK birthday. They are clueless that tens of millions of American provide charity through service and giving- routinely
That's right - it's the intentions that really matter. Republicans want children to starve and die. The same old, tired demagoguery.
Well, sure, that's what they'd have you believe. But, from the article:
Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.
Another liberal sacred cow bites the dust?
Its the Wellstone Syndrome
There was a brief flurry of news about this when Arthur Brooks’ book came out a couple years ago. Liberals don’t like to be reminded.
Because all liberals require of themselves is the FEELINGS. Doesn’t matter if actions follow, they FEEL ‘correctly.’ And there is no self-discipline or real thinking of others, which is what truly giving of yourself requires. Then they can assuage their guilt by voting for idiots.
Yes. He's been pretty good at "spreading the wealth" himself.
Great idea! The comments on the site are quite interesting, and the liberals who are commenting are rather outraged by the article on the whole, it seems.
Some liberals are seeing the light. They want to find ways to deny it, but they are becoming convinced that conservatives do not hate the poor at all.
We must all work on this perception.
So, liberals are more likely to be secular, and it's seculars who don't give as much. Makes sense.
yes be respectful but point how typical this is of liberal hypocrisy. Other historical examples to use: Anti-gun celebrities (Rosie) opposing the right to own a gun and then hiring armed body guards because they feel threatened ( I guess poor or middle class people who are threatened are SOL because they can't afford to hire an armed guard)or back in the 70s the pro-busing crowd who would turn arount to their kids to private, predominately white schools.
The issue Kristof points out is much bigger than who gives more to charity. Let's take a page out of the libs handbook. Don't limit your response to just the contents of Kiristofs article! Use is a platform to point out how inhertitantly hypocritical you have to be to be a liberal these days. Be respectful to the rules of civilized discourse but don't show respect to liberals in general because they don't dererve it. And oh yes, name names and give examples.
I'll see you there. This should be fun!
That’s what I saw in the articles when the Obama’s finally made some contributions, after a number of commentators had noticed how stingy they were. Something like $35,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
No new comments posted since 9:50 — everything since is apparently waiting to be approved.
Should be interesting to see what pops up when he gets back to it...
They give other peoples money to make themselves feel better. Just look at the charity giving of Ohbummer, Biden, Gore, Clinton, etc. They are all skinflints.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I’m shocked, I tell ya!
Yes, the libs won't like what some of us have posted, will they? Still, unless we use profanity, the paper will eventually publish our comments. Oh, wait--I forgot it's the Bush-Bashing rag, the one soon to go belly-up unless the pretender president-elect bails it out. I'll be crying if that happens.
Regards . . . Penny
Any study today about charitable giving is meaningless without factoring in the cynical vanities of the liberal foundations. The Gates, Buffett--how real are their charities? Any hungrey get fed, any souls ministered to, any sick get healed?
Barry raps to the crowd: “You down with O.P.P.?”
DimoLib crowd in unison: “Yeah you know me!”
Thanks for the article! Tithing (and then some) is probably more understood, let alone more supported, by conservatives.
cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.Yet we still have time to cling to Bibles and money to buy 365 Gazillion Guns.
Top that liberals!
I posted but read the comments. They are all a personal discussion of Kristol. No substance, its like they didn’t even read the article. What shallow twits.
If you read between the lines, you can see how so many liberals simply cannot believe this "truth" that flies in the face of everything they have been told about conservatives over the years.
This is an opportunity to cast doubt in their hearts and minds.
Liberals are more likely to give to environmental (Greenpeace) and animal (PETA) charities. They are far less likely to give to the local food shelf.
The Brooks study Kristof references in his article has similar conclusions as Peter Schweizer's excellent book, Makers and Takers. Schweizer contends that left-wing, pro-welfare state public policy leads to an infantilized citizenry that is self-centered and hedonistic rather than productive and conscientious about personal responsibility to others. Schweizer presents survey data that shows that liberals generally expect other people or the government to take care of people in need (even a family member), rather than believing that they have some responsibility to help.
Schweizer implies that because liberals have less self-control and are more conceited, they project these attributes on to others, and so they advocate policy that is designed to restrain the base instincts that are most prominent in themselves.
I think this may be true in general, but I do know some liberals who have a very strong sense of personal responsibility, and are highly productive and conscientious, but they assume everyone else is a selfish child who needs the firm hand of the state to keep them from hurting themselves or others at every turn.
Either way, it is a type of misanthropy that I find abhorrent. Rather than inspire people to become better, it seems to inspire them to become worse.
I cannot argue with a single point in your post; and I concur with yours in re "but they [liberals] assume everyone else is a selfish child" and Mrs. Schweizer' "liberals have less self-control and are more conceited, they project these attributes on to others".
Merry Christmas, Oblomov!
***CA: Union-founded nonprofit spent zero on its charitable purpose in two years (SEIU)***
A nonprofit organization founded by California’s largest union local reported spending nothing on its charitable purpose — to develop housing for low-income workers — during at least two of the four years it has been operating, federal records show.
I noticed that many of the negative comments at Kristof’s website were posted by Liberals who did not seem to read all of the op-ed.
If they had read all of Kristof’s column they would have known that many of the “facts” in their counter-arguments were already disproved by Brooks.
Brooks did a wonderful job of anticipating what the deniers would say.
I noticed the same. It was as if they read the first 3 paragraphs, but not the rest of the article.
There *were* quite a few comments, though. I rather liked being able to engage the liberals on their own turf, but I wish the format allowed for more discussion.