Skip to comments.Conservatives More Liberal Givers (Why Liberals Don't Mind Eliminating Charitable Giving Tax Breaks)
Posted on 03/07/2009 11:50:01 AM PST by jessduntno
Conservatives More Liberal Givers By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
liberals dont give to charities or taxes to government, but demand everyone else to do it, so they could feel good about themselves
Liberals live in a bizarro world, where the facts are so often the opposite of their “reality.” It’s amazing how duped they are with their various slogans of lies.
Not only do liberals not give charitably, but it’s also been my experience they don’t want benefits for their employees, just for themselves.
Duped doesn’t begin to describe this “reality”. In fact I’m not sure what gets to the basis of their “reality”, other than mental, moral, emotional, incurable illness.
mental, moral, emotional, incurable illness, and thus to themselves and others a clear and present danger.
“Lives are a valuable thing to waste. Please raise our taxes.”
Yep...I think it would be a far more impressive message on the bumoer of an old Ford like mine...but, of course, it would never be on there...more lives are saved by true giving than govt intervention...Obama wants to restrict charitable giving by decreasing incentives to do so to increase the dominion of his socialist empire...
I think that a big part of it is due to a liberals "belief" that what you "feel" and "try to do" is actually more important than what you accomplish. This is voiced quite well by an aunt of mine who goes on and on about how "Obana is trying." Of course, WHAT he's trying to do just doesn't really matter to her, as long as he's trying something.
Nancy Pelosi inserted a proviso in the latest bill that raised the minimum wage that excluded American Samoa. Interestingly enough, she and her hubby have a financial interest in the Starkist Tunafish plant in American Samoa, that would have had to pay those higher wages...
Just how much does anyone want to bet that if you look carefully at the "Card Check" unionization bill, there will be an exemption for hotels on the west coast that are eerily similar to the one owned by the Pelosis, which is currently NOT a union shop?
Obama is not just reducing the charitable giving tax deduction, he is making a requirement to put politically active minorities on the boards of charitable foundations along with a directive that 40% of the foundation money be directed to under privileged minority communities.
Hahahaha...you gotta love that...it would be even better on the back of my old Ford...
“Obama is not just reducing the charitable giving tax deduction, he is making a requirement to put politically active minorities on the boards of charitable foundations along with a directive that 40% of the foundation money be directed to under privileged minority communities.”
So many insults to hand out, so little time...no wonder the poor boy is exhausted...unless he’s gone back to “powdering his nose” and isn’t sleeping...
“..... he is making a requirement to put politically active minorities on the boards of charitable foundations along with a directive that 40% of the foundation money be directed to under privileged minority communities.”
Frankly, we have never really cared about the tax deduction, we cared about the need. However, if what you said is true, I will no longer give so much as a dime to charity.
I want Obama to fail at absolutely everything—at whatever cost, period.
Obama is purposely using a shot gun approach to all of this, hoping that we will be paralyzed by fear and won’t be able to dodge any of it.
I keep asking for someone to please do a graphic of Obama as the Joker in the last batman movie. I want to see Obama in white clown face make-up with those cold eyes and evil grin.
Someone could do it with that awful rap group, the Clown Posse, backing up Obama.
|Obama is purposely using a shot gun approach to all of this, hoping that we will be paralyzed by fear and wont be able to dodge any of it.|
|Unfortunately, I think you are right...|
"Lives are a valuable thing to waste. Please raise our taxes."
I'm surprised there wasn't a 'Pro-Choice' sticker too.
Libs are selective about which lives are valuable.
Factor out what liberals give to their Death Cult, and you'll find that liberals give less than half of conservatives give to conventional charities.
Brooks being in a leftist milieu, is unlikely to consider that abortion is for most liberals a kind of a sacrificial religious ritual. He made the point about seculars considering their opinions about the welfare state to be a substitute for charitable giving, but quasi-religion also drives abortion donations.
“he is making a requirement to put politically active minorities on the boards of charitable foundations along with a directive that 40% of the foundation money be directed to under privileged minority communities.”
I read early on that 0bama would do business with those entities that were ‘approved’ and good for him. Can’t find that reference now.
It is really, really difficult to think about those who are ‘3rd world’ type poor.
If the US goes down, those folks have very short lifespans, which aren’t long to begin with.
Even in Kenya.
However, for a liberal, there is one statistic that counts: November 4, 2008! They know the American sheeple are hopelessly confused, and such benefits a liberal.