I am really curious about something, and I would like FACTS here please from people of either the left or right side of the spectrum. Okay so the stereotype is that conservatives generally favor the rich and are unsympathetic to the poor. Yet many on the right claim that with a few exceptions (Susan Sarandon for example) the vast majority of very vocal and wealthy liberals are not nearly as generous as those on the right, INCLUDING the regular Joes and Jills that attend church and donate to charities regularly. Okay, so what is it? Are wealthy left wingers actually as generous as they say that the right wingers ought to be? Do right wingers really favor the rich and hold the poor in contempt? Do left wingers regularly refuse to put their money where their mouth is and are not in reality as generous to the poor as their right wing counterparts? I eagerly look forward to hearing from everybody.
Bill and Melinda Gates foundation?
But yes, conservatives donate more. I expect that has to do with tithing to churches. While that is legally a donation, it’s not necessarily charitable as it pays for a place that you benefit from. Churches also organize lots of volunteer activities.
AFAI(lib)C, conservatives by and large donate because of appeals to moral authority. That’s going to rack up the numbers in their favor. Liberals by and large do so because of appeals to moral conscience.
On what basis do you make that assertion? And I’m not even sure I understand the difference between “moral authority” and “moral conscience”.
Donating to a church is the equivalent of a group of people donating to a guy who does the lawns at the condo’s or the waitstaff sharing tips with the dishwasher, you are giving someone money for their performance of a task. normally its called a paycheck.
take away the money going into a church that does not make it out again (i.e. the money spent on the preacher/upkeep/cable bill and all that) and then do the numbers, I would bet they become very very close at that point.
How is that different from donating to any group? All groups have overhead. Are you saying that unless I go out and find a homeless person (or whatever) and give him money directly, that I’m just “paying the waitstaff”?
But please, do the numbers. I’m not very interested in what you would bet.
It’s not the overhead, it’s paying for a service. Church is more like a restaurant that, after you pay for the meal, donates the profits to charity. It’s still just a restaurant, not a charity.
You’re paying for the meal (sermons, confession, the building itself, Sunday school and the like), and the charity is just so you’ll feel good enough about it all to come back. It is absolutely not the same thing as donating to an actual charity with no expectation of reward or recognition.
I don’t know anything about stats here just personnal experience. I have done volunteer work with homeless. addicts etc for many years. I don’t give much to charity but do help individuals on a one on one basis as do many others I know. Just an observation on my part but many liberals seem to come in with high ideals and burn out rather quickly while the more conservative types seem to have a more realistic attitude and stay in it for the long haul.
Not only that, but try and find out what percentage of the money given to a church actually went to charitable works. Just because the IRS lets you call it charitable giving doesn’t mean that it’s going to what most of us consider charitable causes. Hell, if I give money to Westboro Baptist Church, I can call it charitable giving. Think that money is more likely going to feed the homeless or to buy supplies to whip up a few more “God hates fags” signs?
While I realize that it has become “common knowledge” that conservatives give more than liberals, I’m not convinced that it’s true, and that’s even leaving religious contributions in the mix. Every single cite in which I could find the above “truism” sourced pointed right back to Arthur Brooks (he of the AEI). A new study from MIT referenced below seems interesting, but I can’t find a link that lets me see the full text for free.
Anecdotally, my wife’s side of the family (poor, liberal) is MUCH more generous than my side (rich, far right wing). Yeah, my folks give a lot of money to their rich church (with its rich staff and rich pastor) – if you ignored that, they give almost nothing.
And they tip exactly 15% on the pre-tax part of their bill, after which their liberal son slips a few extra bucks under the bread plate.
Sounds like a mixture of confirmation bias whipped up with an anecdote. That and a quarter…
I was able to find a free download of the above referenced study. It’s 56 pages, so I haven’t had time to go through the whole thing, but here is the link if anyone is interested in it. Just click the download button.
IMHO, a subset of them do.
Some of those who are fiscally conservative really do care about the poor, and the sincerely believe that liberal financial policies are bad for society as a whole, including, ultimately, its poorest and most vulnerable members. Others don’t really care about the poor or don’t want to be taken advantage of by them.
In other words, yes, libtards are remiss in charitable giving (despite their enthusiasm for redistributing other people’s money). But when you think about it, so are conservatives, because if you look at to whom conservatives give, you’ll find that they don’t give to the only charities that count: that is to say, they don’t give to liberals! So really, it’s like they’re not giving any money away at all!
I’m basically riffing on the work of George Lakoff here. His theory is that conservative morality is based in authorities like church and law, whereas liberal morality comes more from individualistic ethics.
Keep terms like this in the Pit, please.
So, really, the question invites a false generalization?
Consider that “conservative” and “liberal” are cultural identities to many people, inherited from their families and reinforced by forces in their communities. There’s a range of behavior within each.
ETA: And then there are the people who “become” “conservative” or “liberal” due to their attitudes, including those who are right-wing anti-charity types, idealistic right-wing pro-charity anti-government types, and charitable leftwing idealists. But those aren’t the complete set of “conservatives” and “liberals.”
Quite frankly, I don’t think my post needed paraphrasing, as it was fairly clear and I even provided cites (are you familiar with that term?), but if you’d like to do so you can start by not posting complete and utter bullshit. Since my post didn’t have any, paraphrasing it shouldn’t either.
You’ll note that I was referring to the fact that paying for signs that say “God hates fags” can be considered charitable giving by the IRS. Would you consider it to be so? I’ll try not to answer for you while waiting.
I left out the part where a large number of churches post overhead donations to charity comes in at under 3% of income. I cannot find where I came across this little stat and with this head cold I can’t find it on google either. so I may be talking out my ass.
Any money I’ve ever given over the years has not gone to a church, but to an actual charitable cause.
In other words, money given to people in need, not some guy with a guess as to whether there’s life after death and a book to peddle.