Welcome to PatsFans.com

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Nov 18, 2006.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,844
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +233 / 8 / -13

    Interesting given the liberials always patting themselves on the back for their concern about the poor ect., and castigate copnservatives for their mean spirited attitude towards the disadvantaged.

    http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html


    Another example of do as I say and not as I do, or talk is cheap, take your pick.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2006
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,059
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    There are many takes on this issue. The Globe just ran an article the other day about an analysis that shows that people from Massachusetts are in the top tier of charitable givers, while other studies put us further down. I suppose the one thing that you have to factor in is that conservatives probably give more to the church, in some cases because they have to (e.g., Mormons) and in other cases because the church is part of their social fabric. I bet if you took churches out of the equation or only compared church goers, you probably wouldn't find much difference in terms of charity.
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    The Catholic Church, which dominates New England, is having a tough time raising money from people who'd rather not contribute to the PPDF (Pedofile Priest Defense Fund). I wonder if state taxes are considered charity...if not, they should be. Also, maybe New Englanders like to donate anonymously more than the rest of the country. Either way, I'd rather live in New England than anywhere else in the world and do my charity quietly and anonymously.
  4. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I would agree with this. Liberals believe the state should be responsible for many aspects of our lives, so they will probably be less inclined to take personal responsibility and initiative in aid/volunteerism. Conservatives believe in small government, but also believe in helping out the needy with generosity and aid. Both help the poor, but only one group recognizes welfare by calling it what it is.
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,059
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    Maverick, Your apparent strict ideological view is not charitable. Liberals won't let ideology get in the way of helping the poor. If charitable giving doesn't do enough to help the needy, then it's clear the government must help as well, and in most of the developed countries there is less poverty and suffering for that very reason. Oh well, at least the poor always have those fancy churches built with charitable funds and time. They can pray for food on their table or health services for their kids.

    ***

    Nonetheless, his study is quite interesting. Here's a very good article by the author:

    http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks_print.html

    I think his interpretation is unfair. For instance, in urban areas, that I strongly suspect are more secular, charities like the church and volunteer fire department are less relevant than in suburban and rural areas. I would suspect that charitable giving is affected very much by where one lives.

    Also, If secularists tend to be younger, perhaps one reason they give less to charity is because they have less time and money. If secularists are more often single, perhaps they give less to charity because they don't get hooked into the social community (PTAs, high school sports fundraising, etc.) that people with kids are involved in.

    And, again, we need to know what is meant by charity. If someone works tirelessly for Deval Patrick is that any charitable than someone who works tirelessly for Pat Robertson? If a religious person volunteers for a church that believes gays should be oppressed, women belong in the home, and the Bible should supercede the Constitution, is that charitable? If someone volunteers to spread the word of Osama bin Laden, is that too a charitable act? Perhaps charity is contributing or doing for free what you believe in. That would make those people who belong to survivalist groups charitable, I suppose.

    Also, did the author take into account the huge donations by Gates and Buffet? Does the author take into account those people who leave their estates to charity, who donate rare dollar artworks to museums? Does the author take into account teachers, social workers, therapists, and others who work extra hours for free because their values demand it?

    It seems to me the author oversimplifies the question to prove a point he intended on proving before he set out. That said, the article raises some interesting questions.
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,167
    Likes Received:
    193
    Ratings:
    +660 / 2 / -9

    Poor people themselves will tell you that the Liberal cannot be trusted, the Liberal Do-Gooder CRAVES self gratification.

    The poor, the minority, the sick and down trodden should never let their guard down when a grinning slobbering do-gooder tells them "I will help you" there is always danger, the do-gooder is more than likely helping themselves.

    A do-gooder can get you into a lot of trouble.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,059
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    Yep, Harry, stay away from the do-gooders. Vote Republican. They do bad.
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,167
    Likes Received:
    193
    Ratings:
    +660 / 2 / -9

    Years ago my family dealt with "do-gooders" they brought nothing but grief in the long run, more trouble than good, that is why the American Indian does their best to avoid them, they kicked Jane Fonda off their reservation when she was just starting out on her "crusade", many in Hollywood tried to use them but the Indian would have no part of it.

    The Liberal USES the minority, the poor, and the stupid, America just tried to do good in Iraq, America tried to get the savage to stop cutting off hands and legs America tried to get the Muslim Iraqi women freedom, America tried to help civilize the murdering animal, look how the phony double standard Liberal do-gooder back stabbed America (hatred for Bush).
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,059
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    There are liberal jerks and there are conservative jerks. You're describing a small number of liberals who are idiots. You're stuck with the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Coulters, and Savages. We're stuck with the Baldwins, Fondas, and Streisands. That said, I vastly prefer the liberal effete to the conservative loudmouths.
  10. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I've had heated discussions with liberals on this. They will viciously defend the government's right to force taxes for certain services. Yet, if I ask them if they ever donated money or time for the very systems they support, more often than not have not.

    I'm not republican or liberal, but I do believe in the community's ability to give and be charitable without government assistance. Many people I meet who also volunteer in soup kitchens or homeless shelters share the same worldview, IMO.

    .
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,059
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    The liberals I know give generously to various causes.

    I think that an elected government, by its very nature, reflects the values of its people. There are many people here who do not look upon helping the poor and suffering as a value that should supercede low taxes and small government. Yet, ironically, they try to claim the moral highground.
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,844
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +233 / 8 / -13


    Perhaps the Libs you know are the exception to the rule.

    I believe you are mistaken in you assumption that people value small goverment and low taxes OVER helping the poor.

    The bekievers in small goverment and low taxes believe that private charity is more effective than goverment programs and that a small goverment and low taxes lead to more propperity and opportunity for the poor to improve their situation in life.

    Conservatives would like to see EVERYONE be well off financially so there would be no need for goverment welfare programs and their attendant corruption.
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,059
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    I'm all for private charity, but Reaganomics showed the tricle down effect doesn't work. Charity is very nice, but it's pretty obvious that even if people gave twice as much as they're giving now, it would not be nearly enough to address the issues of poverty and suffering in the United Sates. Everyone would like to see everyone well off financially; the question is how do you get there. In my opinion, the small government approach hasn't worked. After 80 years of liberal programs, it's quite obvious that since Roosevelt, America has formed a mighty middle class and extreme poverty is uncommon here. Before Roosevelt, all we had was charity.
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,844
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +233 / 8 / -13

    We haven't attempted small goverment in 60 years how would you know. We currently spend ~45% of GDP on goverment. How much is enough?

    The middle class didn't grow because of goverment but more in spite of goverment. WW2 pulled us out of the depression not Roosevelt's policies. Innovation in the private sector has driven economic growth, not goverment. Goverment is largluy overhead.

    BTW look at the growth of the Black middle class before and after the expansion of the welfare state, and the stability of the Balck family. The late Sen Monihyn understood what damage was done by goverment to poor families. The intention might have been good the results were not. The law of unintended consequences at work.
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Exactly right.
    There has never been a case where the government is an effective tool for eradicating poverty, however well-intentioned. Communism, the ultimate BIG Government, began as a reaction to oppressive dictatorship in most cases. It failed in every case. The pure form of democracy coupled with small government would work well dispite its imperfections, IMO. It is not perfect, but it would weaken the ability of the government to intrude on our lives and kill innocent people around the world. Why would anyone trust the government to "cure poverty" at home after what it has done (and spent) in Iraq and on TWOT?
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,059
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Finland, etc. There are other countries with lower poverty rates than the US, such as Taiwan, Mauritius, and Thailand, but I don't know if it's due to more government, like the first countries I listed.

    Democracy reduces corruption. Communist dictatorships failed in that regard, but in terms of poverty, I think the people were overall better off under the Chinese and Soviet systems than under what predated them. Like in the U.S., China is demonstrating that a hybrid economy may be the best, while I hope the same proves true in Russia. I'm not sure there's any evidence between small government and anything particularly good. I can point to a number of examples of countries with high taxes and strong government that I think are find role models. As far as countries with low taxes, well, you'd have to look at Mexico, Bahrain, and places like that.

    The key to big government is transparency. Now, if you're talking about a smaller military (to prevent the kind of nonsense in Iraq), that's another issue.
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,105
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +512 / 6 / -2

    Say what? Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about? I guess people making $5 a week and living in tin shacks is a good system eh? What maroonery. People who have no clue should keep quiet and not embarass themselves. The article in question is exactly correct. Liberals are hypocrites. They beleive everyone else should, and they shouldn't. Non-liberals donate money when liberals want the government to donate everyone elses in their place. Frauders wants more government. Afterall, we all know how efficient governments are with our money. He thinks communisms failures were because of corruption. Oh my! Sure Frauders, it was corruption that did the ruskies in. Anyhow, more government is not the answer. I have no problems with the government helping those who cannot help themselves. I am completely against blank check welfare. As a manager of subsidized units in MA, I see rampant abuse of the system. I see peoples hard earned tax dollars being flushed down the toilet by the foreign & lazy. 75% of my tenants speak little or no english. Aside from the elderly, only about half of the able bodied work. There is no excuse for these people to be living on your, and my dime. If you all saw what I see on a daily basis, you'd have trouble sleeping at night. People must be accountable for themselves. It is not fair to those who work hard & sacrafice for themselves, family, and future, to have to forcefully give to the lazy who refuse to be accountabile for themselves. If people like Frauders want to help some trash mamma out, then they should donate their own time and money, and not mine. I have no problem helping the elderly, disabled, or terminally ill. I do have an issue with helping the able bodied who simply decide that working under the table and living in a free apartment are a better deal than actually working a real job, and paying for themselves. It is not my responsibility to work for the lazy.
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,844
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +233 / 8 / -13

    Hey Patters, concerning the European socailist countries you hold up as an example....They are all dying. Look at their demographics, their European populations are going away, they will cease to exist in their current form within 30 years. They have unemployment levels that are typically more than double the US. And that's what you want to emulate?


    for Real World: Liberials are people who are generous with OTHER people's money. ;)


    Again Patters let everyone know how much of our GDP should be spent on goverment at all levels? the current # is ~ 45%, I think 25% is more than enough. What level of spending do you advocate to provide all these wonderful serivces?
  19. PF1996

    PF1996 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Do YOU have ANY clue as to what YOU are talking about? Or, perhaps I should say, any PROOF that the "article in question is exactly correct". Nothing in that article provided any support for the claimed opinions but it's quite apparent that the average "conservative" on this site doesn't need to have actual FACTS before accepting an opinion that matches their own self-serving opinions. Please spare me your idiotic claim that you're an "independent" because independent minded individuals do not spew the vitriol that you do against only one particular group on the basis of that group's political ideology.

    Ignoring the author's ridiculous contention that "liberals claim to be virtuous" - apparently, the author doesn't realise that those who constantly preach about "morality" but never practice it, tend to be conservatives - there are many questions that this article fails to answer. Perhaps the "statistics" in the book will provide the answers although I quite doubt it considering the tenor of the article. First question - how exactly are these groups defined? The article starts off with a VERY NARROW definition of both groups...but then throughout makes reference to a very BROAD definition of "conservatives" and "liberals". I'm sure there are many liberals who are religous, who live in "traditional nuclear families"...etc. I'm sure that there are conservatives are "secular". What's "government entitlement programs"? How were the people belonging to each group identified? What's the definition of "more generous"? He claims that the total dollars are not dependent on income, yet doesn't include this qualifier for other "giving" activities. How did he determine how much was given in any area? Did he take in account personal wealth rather than simply "income"? Similarly, did his consideration of income include consideration of other necessary expenses? Perhaps one of you "conservatives" should read the book to see whether it answers any of these questions. Maybe then your silly claims about "liberals" would have a bit of credibility.
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,844
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +233 / 8 / -13

    Well Editors checked the book you are welcome to go to the library and read the book and you can verify the facts presented for yourself. That's why the link was provided.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>