Experts have spoken: conservatives give more

[ballz2wallz]

Given the propensity for socialists, liberals, or the misguided on the forum to suggest that unless people are forced to give, then they will just be greedy bastards and hoard all their money, I thought I would post this.

Sure, it's a conservative site, but given that a book is about to be published, you can seek for yourself whether or not you want to believe it.

So the word it out; conservatives give more to charity than do liberals.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Imagine that, people give out of the kindness of their own heart, not becuase they are forced to! Oh my! How will this ever bode for liberals! Not to well, he fears;

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

...

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

On another note, Turner is mad at Murdoch...again.

[6SpeedTA95]

There's been numerous studies that show this but perhaps its just because liberals would rather have the government do it where we'd rather have charities do it?

[R-Type]

Few liberal economic concepts have to do with 'charity.' A lot of that is just conservative spin. Take minimum wage for instance: That's meant to ensure that every worker can make an independent living doing most any fulltime job. It really only affects the bottom barrel jobs because most people make more than that. However, these jobs are critical to the economy as a whole as they make up a large portion of the basic services society needs to function. Thus, a wealthy (comparatively) workforce at this level means a happy workforce in the upper levels of the hierarchy, which in turn makes for a more stable economy. This same argument applies to liberal views on healthcare as well. Conservatives get it with defense (a productive workforce is a defended workforce), so why can't they understand the other contexts? I don't think there's a liberal on this board who's for complete government control of anything, so I'm not really sure why this thread is directed at them.

Anyway, piecemeal charity does not make up for the benefits (theoretical or not) of liberal views on minimum wage, healthcare, and retirement. At the moment, I don't think either party gets the whole picture, but obviously a hybrid government/private system of some kind is in order. I realize a lot of you proclaim to be these 'rugged individualists' who think no one should ever need help, but it seems every time one of those running a large corporation has issues, he goes running to government for help, either in the form of a financial bailout, or law that restricts his competition for him. If it's ok for him to do it when he has millions, why isn't it ok to help the guy making $6.50/hr who makes your sandwich and coffee in the morning? Hypocrisy? hmm..

[ballz2wallz]

R-type, perhaps you've missed it on this forum, but there are many here who believe people will not give unless they are forced to.

This thread is merely to point out that they are wrong, that people are very willing to give, and I personally believe that people would give MORE if they weren't forced to. I believe this would be the case across the board, from welfare to educational grants and scholarships to medical care and research.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

R-type, perhaps you've missed it on this forum, but there are many here who believe people will not give unless they are forced to.

This thread is merely to point out that they are wrong, that people are very willing to give, and I personally believe that people would give MORE if they weren't forced to. I believe this would be the case across the board, from welfare to educational grants and scholarships to medical care and research.

You're correct I'd give a lot more if half of my raises weren't eaten up in taxes

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're correct I'd give a lot more if half of my raises weren't eaten up in taxes

I'd be a lot more willing to help those I see personally here on the streets of Boston if I weren't being forced to pay for them through the 'programs' the city has with my taxes. I have a feeling my small percentage taken is taxes would go a lot further if it didn't have to go through the 'middle-man' (ie goverment) to get to these people.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'd be a lot more willing to help those I see personally here on the streets of Boston if I weren't being forced to pay for them through the 'programs' the city has with my taxes. I have a feeling my small percentage taken is taxes would go a lot further if it didn't have to go through the 'middle-man' (ie goverment) to get to these people.

Of course it would go further which is why I'm for major reform of government systems. I think there NEEDS to be a government safety net but its a safety net to save you from serious injury if you fall. It's not a hammock. I give directly to charities and two businesses that have direct control to help people in need.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

I wonder to what extent he counted "donations" by religious conservatives to their own churches. I don't really consider it generous to donate money every week to support your local mega church to pay for the services and infrastructure you yourself are enjoying and to pay the salary of the guy whom you regularly listen to.

Also, religious people are constantly bombarded with requests for money. Therefore, it's not surprising that people who are constantly asked for money tend to give more of it. I bet you'll find that religious people, whether liberal or conservative, tend to give more than secular people. I don't know why he attached liberal/conservative to the secular/religious variable. I don't see how his conclusions are at all meaningful without isolating that.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I wonder to what extent he counted "donations" by religious conservatives to their own churches. I don't really consider it generous to donate money every week to support your local mega church to pay for the services and infrastructure you yourself are enjoying and to pay the salary of the guy whom you regularly listen to.

Also, religious people are constantly bombarded with requests for money. Therefore, it's not surprising that people who are constantly asked for money tend to give more of it. I bet you'll find that religious people, whether liberal or conservative, tend to give more than secular people. I don't know why he attached liberal/conservative to the secular/religious variable. I don't see how his conclusions are at all meaningful without isolating that.

Churches aren't charity? You've gotta be shitting me, just because there are a few mega churches that are corrupt as hell doesn't mean you should just lump "churches" into a single group. The church I attended when I lived in OKC had 7000 members and did ridiculous amounts of good for the community. They didn't built a big fancy build they expanded their old grocery store to accomodate the membership. The pastor drives a nice Honda Accord and he has an Infiniti as well...hardly extravagant and their help to the community has been priceless.

[infinite loop]

I'm sure the vast majority of those donations are made to their churches, which I always find ironic because churches aren't held nearly as accountable for their spending as the government is.

And for what it's worth, I don't like military spending, which gets the greatest chunk of my tax dollars. WHy is it that you never see me bitching, but it's like a never ending crying session with you guys and social programs?

Taxes are here to stay, deal with it.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by infinite loop

I'm sure the vast majority of those donations are made to their churches, which I always find ironic because churches aren't held nearly as accountable for their spending as the government is.

And for what it's worth, I don't like military spending, which gets the greatest chunk of my tax dollars. WHy is it that you never see me bitching, but it's like a never ending crying session with you guys and social programs?

You've never complained about the military or war? Hmm...

Taxes are here to stay, deal with it.

Not all government programs are...

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Churches aren't charity? You've gotta be shitting me, just because there are a few mega churches that are corrupt as hell doesn't mean you should just lump "churches" into a single group. The church I attended when I lived in OKC had 7000 members and did ridiculous amounts of good for the community. They didn't built a big fancy build they expanded their old grocery store to accomodate the membership. The pastor drives a nice Honda Accord and he has an Infiniti as well...hardly extravagant and their help to the community has been priceless.

Okay, so regarding your 7000 member church, what % of all donations do you think went to actually maintaining the church itself and paying its workers, and what % went to the community?

As for the the Catholic Church, I don't know what % of donations go to the organization and to the community, but they have over 1 BILLION dollars in sex abuse settlements to pay out, all of which will come from donors. You consider that charity?

I'm simply saying that you have to isolate the self-serving portion of donations from church goers from the truly generous part. Perhaps more than half of all money given to churches simply goes to maintaining the church. In that way, people are paying for a service they consume. If that's the case, maybe this guy should have reduced the amount of money religious conservatives give by 1/2.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay, so regarding your 7000 member church, what % of all donations do you think went to actually maintaining the church itself and paying its workers, and what % went to the community?

As for the the Catholic Church, I don't know what % of donations go to the organization and to the community, but they have over 1 BILLION dollars in sex abuse settlements to pay out, all of which will come to donors. You consider that charity?

I'm simply saying that you have to isolate the self-serving portion of donations from church goers from the truly generous part. Perhaps more than half of all money given to churches simply goes to maintaining the church. In that way, people are paying for a service they consume. If that's the case, maybe this guy should have reduced the amount of money religious conservatives give by 1/2.

I think the proof is in the pudding. Without the church I'm sure he could see where his community would be... It's all in the results. To say they mismanaged, etc doesn't really make much of a difference considering they helped his community in ways it seems the government was unwilling or unable to do.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay, so regarding your 7000 member church, what % of all donations do you think went to actually maintaining the church itself and paying its workers, and what % went to the community?

As for the the Catholic Church, I don't know what % of donations go to the organization and to the community, but they have over 1 BILLION dollars in sex abuse settlements to pay out, all of which will come to donors. You consider that charity?

I'm simply saying that you have to isolate the self-serving portion of donations from church goers from the truly generous part. Perhaps more than half of all money given to churches simply goes to maintaining the church. In that way, people are paying for a service they consume. If that's the case, maybe this guy should have reduced the amount of money religious conservatives give by 1/2.

The church publishes all that and hands out quarterly financial results with the bulletins every 3 months. Also during the holidays they do a "reverse offering" where members who want to give can give and members who need can take what they need no questions asked. IF for some reason someone doesn't get what they need they can get it directly from the church simply by asking. They do this four times a year, the two weeks leading up to thanksgiving and then two weeks during december, obviously for thanksgiving and christmas. I know the church provided us with clothes and food for two years when we were really down in 97 and 98.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think the proof is in the pudding. Without the church I'm sure he could see where his community would be... It's all in the results. To say they mismanaged, etc doesn't really make much of a difference considering they helped his community in ways it seems the government was unwilling or unable to do.

Great, and to the extent that donations went to help his community, that should be counted in this guy's calculations. However, to the extent that donations went to fund the "church product" that the donors themselves consumed, that should not be counted as generous, no more than money spent on yourself in any other fashion would be generous.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The church publishes all that and hands out quarterly financial results with the bulletins every 3 months. Also during the holidays they do a "reverse offering" where members who want to give can give and members who need can take what they need no questions asked. IF for some reason someone doesn't get what they need they can get it directly from the church simply by asking. They do this four times a year, the two weeks leading up to thanksgiving and then two weeks during december, obviously for thanksgiving and christmas. I know the church provided us with clothes and food for two years when we were really down in 97 and 98.

And that's pretty much the problem with church donating in a nutshell. It is exclusive. YOU got help when YOU needed it because YOU are a member of the church. Christians taking care of Chrisitans. If you're NOT religious or Christian? If you REFUSE to be hearded into a church in order to receive charity? Where is the help to those people? Oh, that's right, soup kitchens at Thanksgiving. Way to give!

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And that's pretty much the problem with church donating in a nutshell. It is exclusive. YOU got help when YOU needed it because YOU are a member of the church. Christians taking care of Chrisitans. If you're NOT religious or Christian? If you REFUSE to be hearded into a church in order to receive charity? Where is the help to those people? Oh, that's right, soup kitchens at Thanksgiving. Way to give!

Interesting way of looking at it, so I'll add an addendum to my previous statement-- and to the extent that donations were used solely to help follow church members in need, including the donor should he need help himself, the donations should be considered as insurance payments, also not generous.

[motivez]

I'd be interested in seeing the actual statistical analysis done, do you happen to have a link?

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

R-type, perhaps you've missed it on this forum, but there are many here who believe people will not give unless they are forced to.

This thread is merely to point out that they are wrong, that people are very willing to give, and I personally believe that people would give MORE if they weren't forced to. I believe this would be the case across the board, from welfare to educational grants and scholarships to medical care and research.

That may be how you choose to operate.. and hey, I think that's great you wish to be that charitable. However, society as a whole would not give consistently enough to make it work. Most people are poor enough that they really don't feel they can give, and/or they're just too self-centered (which is their right of course). Anyway, I assumed you meant to imply that all liberal policy was equal to 'charity.' Many conservatives spin things in this way. If I misinterpreted your post, I'm sorry.

I don't think there are many bonafide liberals on this forum.. They number in the single digits. The most leftwing users would be considered moderate democrats if they were in office. It's hard to define 'center', but I notice a lot of people here equate everything left of nixon as communist, which I think is just as short sighted as communism itself.