Forum Post: SHOCKING: Conservatives give more to charity than liberals
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 10:52 a.m. EST by ArrestAllCEOS
(115)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
With all of the conservative bashing on here about how only conservatives are greedy and don't help the homeless, I thought I'd present to you this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
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.
-- 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.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- 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.
What does this have to do with Occupy Wall Street. We're beyond republican vs. democrat at this point.
"We"? I've seen so many partisan posts while browsing through these chatboards. There is a very regular theme of hatred for anything conservative, regardless of whether the person is charitable, moral, against corrupt politicians, working class or other.
I disagree, I've stated many time that I though people should OWS and coservatives should band together on common issues. There is a lot of common ground. I think everyone can agree that it's wrong for CEOs to get golden parachutes financed by the tax payers in exchange for screwing the economy.
There are a lot of Ron Paul supporters with OWS and he's conservative.
I think the hateful attitudes is what bothers me most. I wonder what the overlap is between people who express hateful attitudes towards those with less than they have and people who give 10% faithfully to their church every week.
One of the first photos I saw of a "Tea Party" rally was "Your Mortgage is Not My Problem" which is abosolutely ridiculous on a couple of levels.
The public face of conservatives is Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Andrew Breitbart, Eric Cantor, Herman "It's Your Own Fault" Cain...that's why a lot of people like me think of them as smug, callous douchebags.
The good people out there need to make themselves more visible.
Hi, "Your Mortgage is Not My Problem" why is a sign saying that bad? I dont have a mortage, i couldnt afford one, why is your mortage my problem?
I don't have a mortgage either.
One reason that sign doesn't make sense is this:
If you own a home that isn't on acres and acres of land, if you live in a suburb or a city, then there are other homes that surround yours.
If you live on a block where many homes get foreclosed on and remain vacant and untended for long periods of time, the value of YOUR home will decrease.
And if you live on the street but don't own a home, well, abandoned houses bring a whole host of problems with them beyond financial.
So, that's just one way in which other people's mortgage might be the problem of other homeowners.
Anything that keeps people in their homes and enables them to continue to make payments also serves a greater good.
Conservative/libertarians sometimes get too, too locked into what I guess I'd call "individualism" and refuse to look at the bigger picture.
If i had a mortage I wouldnt expect someone else to pay for it, amounts to stealing imo to make other people pay for my stuff.
As if someone was asking you to pay for anything.
Cool! All this should show us is that Republicans care! Why is that such a bad thing. Is it true that most Republicans are also Christians? This would make sense then, because a lot of religiously minded people do give more to charities. I would have to say that more of the liberals are not Christian, given the bad reputation that liberals have with the Conservative Church. So it makes sense that Conservatives give more. Good job conservatives!! At least your not conservative with your giving.
Lets all remember folks. Republicans are part of the 99%. We can't just pretend that they don't matter or that they all want to destroy America. That is simply naive. Republicans care about this country and it's people just as much as everyone else. Perhaps more!
I only say this as a liberal minded person raised in a very very conservative community. You learn to love the differences if you are around them more often. Most average Americans want the same thing: People to be fed, people to work and have jobs, bills to get paid, children to be happy...
christians shouldn't outlaw a woman's right to choose, or a gay person's civil rights...
Christians do a lot of things they "shouldn't do," But then again so does everyone else...
True, but religious ideologies are much more fervent about things they "shouldn't do" than those who aren't. I'm a hell of a lot less excited about making sure women and gays get their rights than religious people are about keeping them from those people...
Unfortunately, you're right. The momentum against change often out weighs the momentum to enact change. Let us hope that the OWS movement has more momentum than the 1%
Unfortunately, our message should be solar power for the country, because it's the one thing no matter what any of us get out of this, that will bring us to that next stage in life and improve our standards of living no matter what government ends up doing to us in the future. People just can't see it and aren't talking about it.
[Removed]
I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of the employees and shareholders of GS are part of the 99%.
[Removed]
As of 2003, households making about $300K plus, which is really not that much if you think about it. My family is right on the cusp of it and I can tell you for a fact we have a lifestyle that is more similar to the middle class than those making $10M per year. Which is kind of why the whole 1% is kind of stupid. You should protest that top 0.1%.
[Removed]
0.1% would be about 30,000 right?
[Removed]
Maybe instead of protesting people who make their money legally (as unethical as it may be) people should protest the government who allows these policies to be in place?
This movement is constantly being mocked by those it claims to represent anyways. I employ 10 people, all of whom are in the 99%, and they all see these protests as a bunch of people coming together to bitch about how crappy their lives are.
Whether it is true or not, that is what the majority of the 99% see when they look at these protests.
[Removed]
Barack Obama loves Israel with the best of them. Don't worry, as long as you believe in "demonizing" your other, we will not have progress.
[Removed]
Weird choice of words their Mikey....We don't need to abandon anyone. We do need to recognize that politicians do what they need to do to stay in office and appease both parties. This is not any different for Barack Obama. PS. I'm a "jew lover," though I wouldn't choose those words. And being a lover of their amazing beautiful and fulfilling culture has nothing to do with being an advocate of colonialism in the 21st century. Israel is a colonial power working to eradicated a group of people from their premisses. This is true. Anyone who would blame the entire Jewry for this does not understand the situation (not that that is what you are doing, just wanted to make that point)
Its called 99% for a reason...not 100%. But we can't just pretend its 99% and really be 50%. We have to include 99%.
Amen to that. I'm a very conservatively minded person, but am willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with ANY liberal that is fed up with bank bail-outs at the expense of the rest of us. Not to mention our dealings with COMMUNIST china, which has led to most of our problems to date. The idea that those that created this crises are somehow too big to fail is neither conservative nor liberal, purely assinine. And the idea that globalization is good, to take good jobs, and ship them to say china, isn't conservative or liberal, it's national suicide. But I guess the newest class of people, the corporation, doesn't need the US workforce to maximize it's profits, just it's politician to keep ALL the conservative and liberals in line.
In fact, we both are against "neoliberalism," which really takes the worst of both our worldviews to create the national suicide you mention.
[Removed]
It was an: "I don't know" actually. I have no idea who is in the top 1%. And really, most of America is pushing for oppression. Anytime we want to buy something cheaply we are oppressing someone somewhere else, most of the time its Mother Earth, but not in all cases. This movement, to me, is about standing up and saying "I take responsibility for the world sucking, but I don't own the world"...there is a group of people who both literally and technically own the world...its time we get in touch with each other, the however many percent of people who own the world, and the people who work and live in it.
[Removed]
It is a collective expansion rather than an individual expansion at the expense of someone else. If we ever truly with to expand, we must do so together. Its not "naive," its just different than your normal line of thinking. In the end, if you have only the "fors" and the "againsts" than you have accomplished nothing...The "againsts" will rally until they are the "fors" and the evolution of our species will continue right on track towards its own destruction.
[Removed]
I understand, and I am trying to find a way for them not to be driven away. But are you not advocating to get rid of them...
[Removed]
I understand, and I do want the movement to have an affect on the accumulation of capital. But I also concede that in all likelihood, I will be purged from the movement.
I keep seeing this from the right, however, I have yet to see where the statistics come from. I'm liberal and I donate all the time, but have never once been able to claim it on my income tax. How many other liberals don't make enough to claim their donations. I'm guessing quite a few of us. Does the claim just come from income tax forms or are there other donations being added? Just curious because I've never once donated and been asked what political affiliation I am. Nor have I been asked when I've given blood or donated to the Good Will and so on. Also, I believe there is a higher percentage of church-goers who are Republican. Are church donations included in the figures? That would certainly skew the figures as anywhere from 75%-90% donated to churches doesn't go to poor people; it goes to pay the church bills, wages, and other expenses. I'm guessing this is just another one of those Republican twist and skew jobs.
I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with crooked banks and corporate control over our government.
republicans support the 1% the republicans aren't about regulating financials or creating jobs. Just ask Wisconsins who have Rep. Gov. Scott Walker owned by the Koch Brothers. The Wisconsins want to recall that republican pupit
Yes, please define "charity".
Hard to believe the people of Iowa give more than the rich liberals on the UES of New York with those big benefits they throw.
Which charities becomes the real question.
Are there bad charities?!? Do we have a rating system for charities and which are worth giving to?
Charities are assessed by how much goes to the purpose and how much to overhead, among other criteria. Here's a site to check
http://www.charitywatch.org/criteria.html
Well.. Mormons, for example, faithfully donate 10% of their income to their Church which is the richest in America and the money goes toward the administration of the church. So if churche tithing is included, we then have to look at which churches and what charity do they actually do.
And yes, there are some bad charities where the overwhelming amount of the money goes to the running of the agency itself, not to the people it purports to help.
Charitable giving is not necessarily to the benefit of society or fellow human beings. A donation to an industry-friendly think tank is also called a charitable donation. Not all 501(c)3's exist for the betterment of society, while all contributions to them are accounted for as charitable.
well...if you dont claim it your unformed and incompetent if its too small to be decucted...enough said on that it seems as though this board is not open minded as to believe that some conservatives and good people and some liberals are evil we are all just people! GT
Lobbyists..
Top 10 Heavy Hitters:
ActBlue..... $55,745,059
AT&T Inc..... $47,571,779
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees.... $46,167,658
National Assn of Realtors..... $40,718,176
Service Employees International Union......$37,634,367
National Education Assn.......$37,051,378
Goldman Sachs........ $35,790,579
American Assn for Justice.......$34,715,804
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers......... $34,292,471
Laborers Union........ $31,876,950
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zj_9lTp-2k
rage against the Corporate machine
Parody on housing bubble crisis!
Individual contributing to charity = good
Corporation contributing to political candidate and influence them = bad
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-1st-demand-needs-to-be/
Guess what, the richest people supported Bush because he was in their pocket. This "study" is a joke.
The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are obtuse and meaningless, you cannot simply lump everyone into two groups. There is ZERO science behind this bullshit study.
Ok very well, but we're still going to make sure there aren't anymore tax cuts for the rich and make sure to reduce corporate influence on politics.
Thanks for the fact though it is new to me it isn't what I call "shocking". Now if it came to me in 120v 60hz AC, that would shocking.
Despite this being basically a troll post, I will make this point one more time.
Throughout history, where the state or some other authority has not had a moral mandate to protect the vulnerable, those in a position to help the weak and the poor have, on balance, exploited and abused them instead. Charity and the christian, humanist ideals behind it are a good thing, but cannot replace a social contract.
This post is not even remotely a troll post. You do not understand what trolling is.
It has to do with who posted it.
I don't believe the argument is about conservative or liberal.
We don't want charity, we want fairness.
republicans support the 1% the republicans aren't about regulating financials or creating jobs. Just ask Wisconsins who have Rep. Gov. Scott Walker owned by the Koch Brothers. The Wisconsins want to recall that republican pupit
You need to elaborate on what types of charities they donate to for us to begin to make meaning from this.
[Removed]
Look, charity is all relative. Some people believe in it, others don't, others still just don't have the money. Some people might just have an income threshold they need to pass in order to start giving. I might have an extra 5 bucks in my pocket one day, but you won't catch me dropping it in the salvation army bin, because my needs aren't being met yet. If I suddenly become rich, you can bet your asses though that i'll be starting companies and programs to give back like installing free solar power on impoverished homes to help lift the burdens... even then! How the hell do you know where the fuck your charity is going? That's another factor...
You want me to donate to help stop breast cancer? Not until all those greedy fuck "gotta get my name on it first" scientists start pooling research and manhours to work TOGETHER on a solution. I'm not paying a bunch of people to perform the same experiments someone else already looked at because they're idiots that are full of shit.
Everything is relative bro, and nothing is shocking these days...
liberals donate plenty of money.
just not theirs
[Removed]
You cannot bring people out of poverty through charity. Poverty is a consciousness problem as much as a financial one, encouraging dependency does nothing to alleviate poverty-consciousness and keeps people poor.
Only through independence and self-reliance can poverty be defeated.
This is true, exactly how most lottery winners are bankrupt within 2 years. The majority of the winners are low income in the first place, and when you give them millions of dollars and they still end up in poverty.
like this real man of genius http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249209/Lotto-lout-Michael-Carroll-dole-squandering-millions.html
[Removed]
I don't recall seeing any starving people there.
[Removed]
Serious question: Who is starving in America and why are they not eligible for food stamps?
[Removed]
I thought this movement aimed to represent the 99%. A person in the situation you describe is, of course, part of the 99%, but only one extreme.
Your question raises numerous issues (the problem of gang violence, for one). These issues are complex and require a more in-depth discussion than we can have on this board. I'm not trying to dodge your question--I acknowledge that we have people in our society who are facing extremely difficult situations. I also will state that the programs we have in place are obviously not working or this situation would not exist. The next step then, if to diagnose the root cause of the problem so we can find an appropriate solution. I think your suggestion is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. I don't think this is the right way to permanently solve the problem.
[Removed]
Temporarily. I think the movement should aim higher, and seek a permanent solution.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic you were replying to
MikeyD stated that people in America are starving. I'm questioning the truth of that statement.
the whole order of this conversation got messed up i was referring to mikeyd
Can you define poverty? WE have been trying to raise people up out of poverty for a very long time, yet the poverty rate remains pretty constant.
What hasn't remained constant is the standard of living for the poor, which has risen. Most American 'poor' today have a roof over their head, enough food to eat, at least 1 TV, cell phones, air conditioning..... I don't begrudge them these things, but it is important to define poverty if you want to get people out of it.
So what is it? If its food, shelter and access to medical care, then we have already nearly eradicated poverty in America. If not, then what is it?
[Removed]
What a load of rubbish, quality of life is of primary importance. If your life improves, what difference does it make that others are doing better than you?
Sorry for having to reply up here, but the board won't allow any more replies where we were at.
No, I'm not saying it invariably leads to war (it could--no argument there). I am trying to point out the importance of correctly identifying the root of the problem so that an effective solution can be determined and applied.
If you took all the wealth of the 1% and gave it to the poor, then you would have a new 1%--the next richest group. They would now have the power and influence to corrupt the system (or more likely continue the corruption). This is not a solution. Focusing on closing the income gap without addressing WHY it exists will result in failure to fix the problem. That is my point.
[Removed]
At this particular time in history, I would say that the biggest contributors are:
1) The take-over of our government by big corporations. Many laws and practices have led to a situation where lobbyists who work for big corps actually write legislation that is supposed to regulate their industries. The fox guarding the hen-house.
2) The focus on short-term profitability in the corporate sector. CEOs are paid to make short term profit, not to ensure the long-term health of the company (thereby ensuring jobs for workers). This has contributed significantly to our jobs moving overseas, decreases in employee benefits, layoffs, etc.
3) This may be included in #1, but the ridiculously reckless practices of the financial sector, made possible by the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the failure of our regulatory agencies. There are lots of contributing factors here, including the meddling of the Federal Reserve.
That list is not comprehensive and I'm sure folks smarter than me could add much more. Bottom line though, IMO, is that we need to get money out of our political system so that we can have true representation. If we get that, we can get rid of the corruption and establish a fair playing field.
[Removed]
1) I don't think those changes would fix all the problems. However, I do think they are problems we need to address first (more broadly, getting corruption out of Washington). Right now, we are not dealing with an honest broker, so to speak. If we demand policy change from our current leaders, they may give it to us. But we will have the same crooked politicians being led by the same crooked corporations writing those policies. They are very good at presenting legislation that sounds like ti's going to help the little guy while in actuality it continues the status quo. If we get these guys to agree to give us change, I guarantee we will only get more of the same, so there is no point in demanding policy change until we are dealing with an honest broker.
2) Nope, I do not think anyone currently in Washington will push such legislation, which is why I think we need to get rid of all of them. Personally, I would love to see a national recall of the entire congress. If we can't make that happen, then we have to look at other options, such as getting states to recall their reps, or voting in people who are not 'part of the system'. That last one will be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible, given the current state of the election process.
I also like the idea of organizing elections independent of the current government. If the congress won't step down, then maybe we should just have our own elections anyway, and send our winners to Washington to take over the offices occupied by those who claim to represent us now. Or, we could just set up a new government in some other location, stop paying taxes to the IRS and just begin living our new system.
Tall orders, for sure, but IMO anything that does not remove the current politicians will be for naught.
[Removed]
I don't think we need a new system--the constitution is fine. We do need honest reps, though.
Really? Quality of life is not important? So if everyone were poor that would be OK?
[Removed]
I think if you look at the conditions in America across FDR's term (1933-1945) you will find that it was not 'equal'. I'm also not sure that getting unemployment to 'only' 15% in 8 years is such a great achievement. 15% is still pretty darned high, and higher than the official numbers today, which no-one seems happy with.
[Removed]
I'm not sure what equality numbers you are referring to.
The public works projects were great--you'll get no argument form me there. Of course, we are not able to do the same today because we are far, far too much in debt.
[Removed]
Income inequality dropped to it's lowest levels at the end of FDR's term, specifically at the outbreak of WWII. A similar decline happened during WWI. Wars change the labor market, among other things, which contribute to closing the wealth gap. I'm sure neither of us would advocate more war to solve the problem, though.
There are many causes for wealth inequality, and they are intertwined. It is important to understand the cause of the problem, otherwise, any solution you come up with is likely to fail. One of the main causes of inequality today (IMO) is the corruption in our government, which allows big business to dictate laws and regulations which favor themselves. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor will not fix this situation.
You realize MikeyD is a right ideologue, right? He's trolling you - the arguments he's making are not his own but a bastardization of what he feels are progressive values, spun in a particular way to make a point, for the purpose of getting folks to vote Republican.
[Removed]
How did that work for the USSR? Follow the logic...if you divest the rich of their assets, after 20 yrs, who has assets to give the poor? The government has all the assets that's who. You want that type of country?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/shocking-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-than-l/#comment-137910
[Removed]
There is no other way? Open your mind - there are always many ways. I spent 10 yrs getting an education paying my own way. I have a good job, still middle class, but have a nice home and have invested and saved for retirement. Are you going to take my money and assets? There is ALWAYS someone richer and poorer. How to you draw or define the lines?
I haven't thought this all the way through...but I am for the idea of somehow, someway, making college education more accessible to ALL people who are willing to show the energy and apptitude for it.
[Removed]
College grads have to start at the bottom too. I did. I took crap pay. Our government cannot --- no matter how badly we want it to, make lower wage countries have higher demand for our overpriced products made worse by labor unions. We are priced out of the market sad to say - at least on lower level manufacturing jobs.
Forcibly stealing from the rich has never produced a successful, balanced economy. I agree the inequality is terrible. I don't want you taking my money forcibly, therefore, in principle, I cannot take someone elses money forcibly. There must be a better solution.
[Removed]
Hahaha. If you're kidding.
WTF?!?!? if you're not.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/shocking-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-than-l/#comment-137910
I laughed