[spacefreak]

This doesn't surprise me, though I'm sure a few folks in here will upset at this.

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism

Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate--and more generous--than liberals

Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.

[Dakar²]

I hope they don't count political contributions.

[Doofy]

This comes as no surprise. Conservatives tend to redistribute their own wealth to charitable causes as they see fit whilst libs tend to just bang on about distributing other people's wealth (never their own).

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This comes as no surprise. Conservatives tend to redistribute their own wealth to charitable causes as they see fit whilst libs tend to just bang on about distributing other people's wealth (never their own).

I might have spun this a little differently, but, yeah, what he said.

Charity is a cornerstone of conservatism. If one is conservative and not charitable, they are a dick.

[RAILhead]

Of course this is the case. Remember, all of us Neocons are capitalist pigs, rolling in so much dough, we have to give it away to charity to help with the 83%+ of the tax burden we heft for all the poor whiners.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This comes as no surprise. Conservatives tend to redistribute their own wealth to charitable causes as they see fit whilst libs tend to just bang on about distributing other people's wealth (never their own).

Exactly. Conservatives donate, liberals pay taxes. In theory the money should all end up going to the same causes. In theory...

[subego]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Of course this is the case. Remember, all of us Neocons are capitalist pigs, rolling in so much dough, we have to give it away to charity to help with the 83%+ of the tax burden we heft for all the poor whiners.

Meh.

An unequal tax burden on the rich doesn't bother me as much as what is done with those taxes.

If there was a little less pork in the gov'mint...

Mmmmm. Pork with mint jelly.

[Helmling]

Of course, one might ask if this includes donations to churches, which would explain a lot. But then again, there are many questions about this rather vague statement. How does one quantify "strong families" for example, and what effect the "state-subsidized" income qualifier might have on the data. All in all, it looks like this data might have been jerry-rigged in favor of a pre-existing hypothesis.

I, however, won't jump to that conclusion, as doing so would be as reckless and touting such a finding on a message board without having read the book just because it supporting my own irrational bias about what is and is not conservative/liberal.

We wouldn't want that, now would we...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But then again, there are many questions about this rather vague statement...

Good point. I must admit I was only responding to the thread title.

What is supposedly proved in this book seems a tad subjective no matter how much research you throw at it.

The actual quantity of donations is obviously less subjective, and I would only be surprised if the results were the opposite. Charity is supposed to be a really big part of the conservative ethos.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I hope they don't count political contributions.

Well, that's a ****in' charity case if I ever saw one.

[Dakar²]

Waste of money, you say?

[subego]

No, just retarded.

[Millennium]

It's the unhypocritical thing to do. Many conservatives, particularly libertarians, oppose government-based social spending because they believe that its goals are better (and more appropriately) accomplished by private giving. Thus, they give.

[The Left]

the problem is conservatives donate for political objectives. which is why charity is best handled by the goverment so that it is not just used for religious/political goals.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by The Left 

the problem is conservatives donate for political objectives. which is why charity is best handled by the goverment so that it is not just used for religious/political goals.

That's a bit of a generalization there...

How do you know what the average conservatives generally donates to?

[Spliffdaddy]

He hasn't a clue.

But it's pretty obvious that when liberals donate money it's almost always to labor unions, greenpeace, and terrorist organizations.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

It's the unhypocritical thing to do. Many conservatives, particularly libertarians, oppose government-based social spending because they believe that its goals are better (and more appropriately) accomplished by private giving. Thus, they give.

Not the ones that I know. They'd rather see Africa die off from AIDS than donate a penny. Their reason? Survival of the fittest. I'm not suggestion that they all are like that of course.

Maybe there's more to be done such as actually feeding the poor rather than just donating money. Three hours a week isn't bad at all.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by The Left 

the problem is conservatives donate for political objectives. which is why charity is best handled by the goverment so that it is not just used for religious/political goals.

Ahh I see... the government is a non-political force, whilst private entities are political forces...

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by demograph68 

Not the ones that I know. They'd rather see Africa die off from AIDS than donate a penny. Their reason? Survival of the fittest. I'm not suggestion that they all are like that of course.

I only said it was the unhypocritical thing to do, not that it's what everyone does.

[macintologist]

Church tithings should not be construed as charitable giving.

Also, the poor tend to vote Democrat, ie. be "liberal". It's a lot harder to donate to charities when you're probably needing one yourself in order to get by.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Church tithings should not be construed as charitable giving.

Oh really?

Please enlighten all of us to your wisdom.

[TETENAL]

Churches use the tithed money to built "temples" and oppress women. That's hardly charitable.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Churches use the tithed money to built "temples" and oppress women. That's hardly charitable.

Most any church uses some of that money to give back to the community in some way. Non-religious charities also use their money to pay the bills, pay certain people etc. How is that different?

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This comes as no surprise. Conservatives tend to redistribute their own wealth to charitable causes as they see fit whilst libs tend to just bang on about distributing other people's wealth (never their own).

Exactly. As I have pointed out in other threads, fiscally conservative people are not heartless. Rather, they simply do not believe that government is an efficient vehicle in distributing wealth. They use both religious and non-religious charities within local communities to distribute help to those who need it the most in the communities where they live.

I see a lot of liberals talking of redistribution of wealth but they do nothing themselves and talk of banning or regulating/taxing groups that do something. If they do talk of giving, it is to causes in other countries and political pressure groups rather than the homeless on the street in their own communities.


I've got no problem with helping people in Africa but charity should begin at home first.

You don't see us conservatives calling for green peace to lose tax exempt right? That is because we believe in freedom of thought, belief and association not matter how silly we may think they are.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Churches use the tithed money to built "temples" and oppress women. That's hardly charitable.

Your stereotype that you attempt to apply to all churches is a idiotic and bigoted as any racial stereotype.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Church tithings should not be construed as charitable giving.

Also, the poor tend to vote Democrat, ie. be "liberal". It's a lot harder to donate to charities when you're probably needing one yourself in order to get by.

So where are the soup kitchens set up by humanists? Nowhere. You call claim to care about people but you treat the homeless like garbage.

It is time for you to get off your high horse and join the rest of us humans down here.

I would not paint all poor with one brush. The working poor in rural areas do not typically vote Democrat but as a Canadian, I don't care since we are not all living in the US. Welcome to the internet. It is international.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

So where are the soup kitchens set up by humanists? Nowhere. You call claim to care about people but you treat the homeless like garbage.

It is time for you to get off your high horse and join the rest of us humans down here.

I would not paint all poor with one brush. The working poor in rural areas do not typically vote Democrat but as a Canadian, I don't care since we are not all living in the US. Welcome to the internet. It is international.

Why would they set up a new soup kitchen when they can just work at an existing one and save themselves time and money which would be better spent helping the poor?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Why would they set up a new soup kitchen when they can just work at an existing one and save themselves time and money which would be better spent helping the poor?

Zing! Conservatives never acknowledge all the good that public services have done like police and fire departments,

[spindler]

This thread started off with a specific claim, that conservatives donate more than liberals.

And then it just mentioned some vague fluff about church attendance and different political ideas.

Can we see some statistics or claims or do vague claims equate to actual sacrifices?

I could just claim that liberals exercise more than conservatives without any proof, and claim it is because liberals have more heart and love of the environment, but that would be equally as silly.

[nonhuman]

Actually, I wonder if conservatives donate more, do liberals volunteer more?

[Tuoder]

I would like to see a study about how much rich liberals donate when compared to rich conservatives. A conservative has a much stronger tendency to have a lot of money. I would think that having a lot of money would show a stronger correlation than political ideology.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I would like to see a study about how much rich liberals donate when compared to rich conservatives. A conservative has a much stronger tendency to have a lot of money. I would think that having a lot of money would show a stronger correlation than political ideology.

I don't think it's true at all that a conservative is more likely to be rich.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by spindler 

This thread started off with a specific claim, that conservatives donate more than liberals.

And then it just mentioned some vague fluff about church attendance and different political ideas.

Can we see some statistics or claims or do vague claims equate to actual sacrifices?

I could just claim that liberals exercise more than conservatives without any proof, and claim it is because liberals have more heart and love of the environment, but that would be equally as silly.

Then there is the fact that the amount of money donated to charity is insignificant when compared to taxes collected by a government - which just reduces the original post in this thread to nothing more but harmless flamebait.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I don't think it's true at all that a conservative is more likely to be rich.

VOTE BY INCOME
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Under $15,000 (7%) 67% 30%
$15-30,000 (12%) 61% 36%
$30-50,000 (21%) 56% 43%
$50-75,000 (22%) 50% 48%
$75-100,000 (16%) 52% 47%
$100-150,000 (13%) 47% 51%
$150-200,000 (5%) 47% 51%
$200,000 or More (5%) 45% 53%


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pag.../epolls.0.html

You figure out the alignment or go to the site. Exit polling isn't the best way to collect data, but you get the idea.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

VOTE BY INCOME
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Under $15,000 (7%) 67% 30%
$15-30,000 (12%) 61% 36%
$30-50,000 (21%) 56% 43%
$50-75,000 (22%) 50% 48%
$75-100,000 (16%) 52% 47%
$100-150,000 (13%) 47% 51%
$150-200,000 (5%) 47% 51%
$200,000 or More (5%) 45% 53%


CNN.com - Elections 2006

You figure out the alignment or go to the site. Exit polling isn't the best way to collect data, but you get the idea.

That looks to me like it shows that the poor are more likely to be Democrat than Republican, but that the rich are almost equally likely to be either. 8% is not a particularly significant difference, especially when dealing with exit polls.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Zing! Conservatives never acknowledge all the good that public services have done like police and fire departments,

You're really reaching. You know that right?

Why did you avoid my previous question?

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Then there is the fact that the amount of money donated to charity is insignificant when compared to taxes collected by a government - which just reduces the original post in this thread to nothing more but harmless flamebait.

You do know where most of that money goes right? It is eaten up by salaries of the bureaucracy rather that accomplishing something. That is why conservatives would rather give to organizations with less bureaucracy with the expectation that more of the money given would actually end up helping those who need it most.

[hyteckit]

Stop Advertising A Book!

I will not donate money to this book on amazon.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Actually, I wonder if conservatives donate more, do liberals volunteer more?

Who knows? But the question should be asked, what types of organizations do they volunteer for? If it is for political pressure groups or groups like green peace or PETA, I cannot see how that would be very charitable or selfless since they are merely pushing their own agenda rather than helping their fellow man.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Zing! Conservatives never acknowledge all the good that public services have done like police and fire departments,

What does that have to do with the topic at hand. I don't see anybody debating support for essential services from the Conservative side. You would be more likely to see a union supporter argue that they are not essential services and that they should be able to strike and disrupt law and order.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Why would they set up a new soup kitchen when they can just work at an existing one and save themselves time and money which would be better spent helping the poor?

Who says that these humanist work at existing ones? Wouldn't they be all too offended by the religious stuff? I would assume that rather than associating themselves, with what they consider to be undesirables, they would merely spend their time criticizing those who do actually volunteer and donate.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That looks to me like it shows that the poor are more likely to be Democrat than Republican, but that the rich are almost equally likely to be either. 8% is not a particularly significant difference, especially when dealing with exit polls.

Yeah, it didn't demonstrate as strong of a correlation as I thought it would, but it is there. Also, it must be remembered that the richest are the most able to give by far. Also, this poll is a from an election where democrats won. One must tkae into account the fact that some of the "Dems" are really conservative, though probably moderate.

I wonder if church donations count. That could totally skew this all of the way toward the conservatives. I still don't think that totally explains it. Christianity preaches generosity. Where christianity is stronger, so shall charity be.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Who says that these humanist work at existing ones? Wouldn't they be all too offended by the religious stuff? I would assume that rather than associating themselves, with what they consider to be undesirables, they would merely spend their time criticizing those who do actually volunteer and donate.

Maybe, maybe not. Anyone who really cares about helping the poor will do what they think provides the most help.

I'm not really sure what a 'humanist' is, but this atheist has no problem working with religious people when our goals are in alignment. So long as they aren't constantly trying to convert me, that is.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Yeah, it didn't demonstrate as strong of a correlation as I thought it would, but it is there. Also, it must be remembered that the richest are the most able to give by far. Also, this poll is a from an election where democrats won. One must tkae into account the fact that some of the "Dems" are really conservative, though probably moderate.

Yeah, it does show some correlation. But there's also a question of relative wealth amongst the wealthy. I seem to recall a poll in the recent past that indicated that wealthy Democrats are, in general, wealthier than wealthy Republicans. So if there are more wealthy Republicans than Democrats, it may still be that the average Democrat is wealthier than the average Republican.

I wonder if church donations count. That could totally skew this all of the way toward the conservatives. I still don't think that totally explains it. Christianity preaches generosity. Where christianity is stronger, so shall charity be.

I'd imagine that church donations do count. I'm not sure it would screw it as much as you're assuming though.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yeah, it does show some correlation. But there's also a question of relative wealth amongst the wealthy. I seem to recall a poll in the recent past that indicated that wealthy Democrats are, in general, wealthier than wealthy Republicans. So if there are more wealthy Republicans than Democrats, it may still be that the average Democrat is wealthier than the average Republican.

I'd imagine that church donations do count. I'm not sure it would screw it as much as you're assuming though.

I really don't know.

I just get very skeptical when the jump is attempted from statistics to general character traits and such. Statistics are too often used to distort the truth.

Originally Posted by Mark Twain (probably)

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Wiskedjak]

So, basically, this whole thread is about claims made in the promotional paragraphs for a book?

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, basically, this whole thread is about claims made in the promotional paragraphs for a book?

Shhhh. I don't want to feel like i wasted my time.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I really don't know.

I just get very skeptical when the jump is attempted from statistics to general character traits and such. Statistics are too often used to distort the truth.

Agreed.

[hyteckit]

If you help me steal $100 from the neighbor, I'll donate $10 to your favorite charity. You know, cause I'm a compassionate conservative.

War Profiteers:

Amazon.com: Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers: DVD: Robert Greenwald,Janis Karpinski

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If you help me steal $100 from the neighbor, I'll donate $10 to your favorite charity. You know, cause I'm a compassionate conservative.

War Profiteers:
[

Ok, you caught me. I'm Mr. Warbucks. I was on my way to the bank to cash my big fat check from my weapons factory.

Do I drive a car? No. I'm not burning any oil for transport other than via public transit.
I don't own any oil company stocks or trade in oil commodities.

Could I drive a car? Sure, I could buy a car any day I'd like but I really don't need one.

So not only am I not profiting from the war in the middle east, I am not contributing to the problem of the west's dependence on middle east oil.

$10 bucks? That barely buys a decent warm meal these days. How about you donate a $100 dollars instead?