Charity: Would it surprise you? - Political Forum

Troianii · 12-04-2006, 04:55 PM

No great surprise to me. My words in red.

Quote:

So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called "Who Really Cares" by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.

The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about "nurturing" people who need help. The "tax the rich" crew can't yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.

That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is "income redistribution;" that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed "economic justice," things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.

But a funny thing happened on the way to socialism. Americans who believe in "income redistribution" give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential.

I believe this is a religious thing. Secular-progressives believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it's all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street.

I think it's religious, but I think laziness and selfishness is a factor, half of what he's saying. It's the difference between "something needs to be done" and "YOU need to do something" versus "I need to do something."

But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge "help your neighbor" guy. For J.C., it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession.

Again, a lack of material selfishness and laziness.

The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here's another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation's blood supply would rise 45%.

Oooh, there's a shock.

So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don't like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little.

If Mr. Scrooge is a Republican, the fact of the matter is that he was visited by three ghosts and renewed his faith, and is no miser anymore.

So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned in this column. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What's left is not even close.

BillOReilly.com: Bill's Current Column

Ygorl · 12-04-2006, 05:33 PM

No, it's no surprise to MANY of us who are awake and have our eyes open.

1. Religious Americans are more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.

2. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is "income redistribution.

3. Americans who believe in "income redistribution" give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a big differential.

4. Secular-progressives believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it's all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street.

5. But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture.

6. Statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here's another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation's blood supply would rise 45%.

Lefties will only deny these truths or dismiss them as "Just crazy." etc. etc. etc. They don't want the rest of us to wake up.

"Keep the sheeple asleep

and busy watching football and they won't care WHAT we do with their money or society."

Tumbleweed · 12-04-2006, 06:11 PM

Here is something Bill forgot to mention.

Senior Volunteers

According to a recent survey, almost 44 percent of all people 55 and over volunteer at least once a year; over 36 percent reported that they had volunteered within the past month. These older volunteers give on average 4.4 hours per week to the causes they support. The 26.4 million senior volunteers gave approximately 5.6 billion hours of their time— a value of $77.2 billion to nonprofit organizations and other causes in this country.

If Bill can convince me the above mentioned are mostly Conservatives and not liberals I'll listen to his point of view.

Maybe money isn't as big a factor as Bill would like us to believe.

Troianii · 12-04-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

Here is something Bill forgot to mention.

Senior Volunteers

According to a recent survey, almost 44 percent of all people 55 and over volunteer at least once a year; over 36 percent reported that they had volunteered within the past month. These older volunteers give on average 4.4 hours per week to the causes they support. The 26.4 million senior volunteers gave approximately 5.6 billion hours of their time— a value of $77.2 billion to nonprofit organizations and other causes in this country.

If Bill can convince me the above mentioned are mostly Conservatives and not liberals I'll listen to his point of view.

Maybe money isn't as big a factor as Bill would like us to believe.

maybe you can find some better sources, for some reason i was hard pressed to find any one way or the other, but this source disagrees with the very premis of your dissent. The elderly, as a group, are not liberal. In fact, according to this source, if they weren as a group to be called liberal or conservative they'd be called conservative. However, this source is not only based in the U.S. - do you have one based only in the U.S.?

Tumbleweed · 12-04-2006, 07:12 PM

Maybe, but then I'd have to convince you Bill isn't fair and balanced too.

Troianii · 12-05-2006, 02:58 PM

I'm sorry, what i was referring to in my last post was this study. I forgot to give the link, sorry my bad.

link

superbug · 12-06-2006, 10:51 AM

Here is another story about this topic:
Townhall.com::Who gives to charity?::By John Stossel

Quote:

But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

Troianii · 12-06-2006, 11:00 AM

The basic implication is that liberals are saying that money needs to be given to charity, but not their money. Something needs to be done, but they don't have to do it. It seems to me like they don't want any part in it unless everyone has to take a part in it.

Of course, we're talking about liberals as a group, individuals always stray from the group. There are conservatives that are misers, and there are liberals that are charitable, but these people are not the norm.

superbug · 12-06-2006, 11:03 AM

Of course. It would seem, though, that as long as it is forced charity then liberals have no problem with it. I guess they just are self starters for the most part.

Troianii · 12-06-2006, 11:09 AM

Personally, I don't want the government forced charity. It's ridicilous. The government is terrible at handling money, so much of the money that flows through it's hands always goes to waste. Just to make my point, they paid for victims of Katrina to stay at lavish hotels and watch porn and, I think, even get hookers. The government PAID for porn and five star hotels with tax dollars!

Further, that kind of charity instills in people a sense that they have a RIGHT to other people's money. Charity is a gift that people should be thankful for, not something that people have a right to.

And, on a personal level, even though I'm still in High School I've used charity as a way to witness, I only wish that I had used it more often and been unafraid to, which I have been at times.