Why the hatred of Hillary?

[Ocean_Annie]

The right hates anyone who threatens the status quo. They hate Hillary because a woman might actually win this election.

[Algher]

@Kimstu

Cite? The statistic I’ve seen is that religious conservatives donate more to charity than secular liberals. That would make sense if only because religious organizations tend to be involved with lots of charitable activities. I have seen no comparison of religious conservatives with religious liberals, or secular conservatives with secular liberals, in terms of charitable contributions.

This article summarizes some of the data:

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

• households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.
• Of the 25 states that donated a portion of household income above the national average in 2001, Mr. Brooks writes, 24 gave a majority of votes to President Bush three years later
• Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Kimstu

The statistic I’ve seen is that religious conservatives donate more to charity than secular liberals. That would make sense if only because religious organizations tend to be involved with lots of charitable activities.

It has something to do with accepting a requirement to tithe, too.

[Kimstu]

@Algher

This article summarizes some of the data:

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/ar...04/04001101.htm

Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.

But that’s exactly the same research I’m talking about, reporting exactly the same result that I mentioned: namely, that religious conservatives give significantly more in charitable contributions than secular liberals.

According to this research, it isn’t being Republican or conservative vs. being Democratic or liberal that makes the difference in average charitable generosity: it’s being religious vs. being secular. In fact, according to that research, non-religious conservatives are the least generous of all.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sarahfeena

Generally, what conservatives, both in power and otherwise, want from social programs is for them to be more effective and more efficient, allowing for fewer of them to exist over time, not more.

When have they ever put that into practice? Ever?

[Lamar_Mundane]

@BrainGlutton

At least it should kill the “dyke” meme.

Uh, I think you need to check out those links.

I had never heard of this before and still haven’t seen anything about it other than here. Maybe Hillary will dump Bill for a woman while in the White House. It might be cool just to see people’s heads explode.

[Algher]

@Kimstu

But that’s exactly the same research I’m talking about, reporting exactly the same result that I mentioned: namely, that religious conservatives give significantly more in charitable contributions than secular liberals.

According to this research, it isn’t being Republican or conservative vs. being Democratic or liberal that makes the difference in average charitable generosity: it’s being religious vs. being secular. In fact, according to that research, non-religious conservatives are the least generous of all.

That is why I put in that part of the quote - it is very interesting to me.

The problem here is the strong tie between conservatism and religion. I also am interested in the book’s claim that religious conservatives give MORE than religious Liberals (though it must not be that much or it would be explored more in the article). The ranks of giving then appear to be:
Religious conservatives
Religious liberals
Secular liberals
Secular conservatives

The comments about more giving from states that voted for Bush are interesting too, though that is a tough connection to make to pure party registration as well.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Some comments:

Data quality: The author “proudly describes [his book as] “a polemic””. So we should be a little wary. He relies heavily on survey data, which is problematic – but he says that he looked at 15 datasets, which is good news. Some peer review might be nice.

Be that as it may, the liberal/conservative divide seems to be mostly (entirely?) explained by religion.

Furthermore:

“In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people — $2,210 versus $642. And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities.”

So religious people give more to charity, and 94% of that effect is explained by donations to their church.

I dunno. Methinks that a good portion of a religious donation is put into church services and socials: while laudable, it doesn’t have too much to do with aid to the poor, which is what Christ commands. Sure, churches do run social programs, but I’d like to see a treatment of their budgets in aggregate.

Algher: That was a nice link though – Kudos!

[Measure_for_Measure]

Here’s some more info. The consumer expenditure survey breaks down charitable donations by income. Lower income groups tend to give a higher share of the income than higher income groups. Didn’t Jesus praise a poor woman who oiled his feet or something?

             $5000-$10,000      $20,000 - $30,000       $50,000 - $70,000
total         2.6%                       2.2%                     1.6%  
religious    2.05%                     1.74%                       1.20%
non-reli     0.36%                      0.33%                      0.29%
education   0.07%                       0.15%                      0.06%  

The point: Arthur C. Brooks didn’t look at expenditure shares or shares of income, which surely is the proper measure of generosity.

To my surprise, giving to both religious and non-religious charity tends to decline with income, though education giving has more of hill-shape.

As richer people have a greater tendency to vote Republican, I’d say that this sort of adjustment is relevant.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Oops. I missed the table with higher income groups. Charitable giving plateaus at 1.5%, then increases to 1.7% in the $150,000+ group. A pronounced increase in the shares given to non-religious charity occurs in the top 2 groups.

[Measure_for_Measure]

More…

Robert McClelland and Arthur Brooks [1] cited here clarify that income was the most important explanation for giving behavior.

This paper (by other authors) explores the U-shaped giving profile, whereby shares to charity are highest for the lowest and highest income groups. “Although the U-shaped profile is an appropriate descriptor, it does not reflect typical household behavior. Instead, it is driven almost entirely by the 5% of households that contribute one tenth or more of their after-tax income. Traditionally, the presence of so many highly committed, low-income households has been attributed to religious sect affiliation by the poor. The authors find an additional explanation in that these highly committed, lower-income households are dramatically wealthier than other members of their income classification, in part reflecting the presence of lower-income, higher-asset, retirement-aged households.”

@Shodon

Since Republicans and conservatives donate more to charity than liberals or Democrats, your perceptions are probably skewed. Republicans tend to be the sort of people who don’t need to be coerced into doing the right thing, and therefore tend to believe that others don’t need to either.

Yeah, we all knew this was blather. But that last paper suggests that variations in charitable giving are explained more by a small group that contributes a lot, than by general tendencies among larger categories such as “Republican” or “Democrat”.

[1] Yes, the same Arthur Brooks. Although characterized as the new darling of the religious right, he appears to be a serious scholar of the nonprofit sector. On his latest book: "To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information. “I know I’m going to get yelled at a lot with this book,” he said. “But when you say something big and new, you’re going to get yelled at.” "

[Shodan]

This is what I was talking about -

households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.

You can parse it down further, but overall, the study concluded what I said it did. And if you hold religious commitment constant, you still find that religious conservatives give more than religious liberals.

You want to vary the other factors, that’s a different discussion.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kimstu]

@Shodan

And if you hold religious commitment constant, you still find that religious conservatives give more than religious liberals.

But as noted above, you also find that secular conservatives give less than secular liberals. Which pretty much destroys the hypothesis that it’s conservatism per se that somehow makes people more generous in charitable donations.

[Shodan]

@Kimstu

But as noted above, you also find that secular conservatives give less than secular liberals. Which pretty much destroys the hypothesis that it’s conservatism per se that somehow makes people more generous in charitable donations.

Which would be particularly unfortunate for me if that was what I said.

But since it wasn’t, it isn’t.

It must have been a better point than I thought, since y’all are trying so hard to talk it away.

:shrugs:

So I suppose my point has been established - one of the reasons for “hatred” of Hilary is that people who were not raised in households characterized by greed and selfishness (as measured by charitable deductions) resent her apparent assumption that they were, and that unless we donate our used undershorts to charity, we have no compassion for the poor, and must be coerced into it by government.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kimstu]

@Shodan

It must have been a better point than I thought, since y’all are trying so hard to talk it away.

Cute! You make an inaccurate sweeping generalization, and when other people go to the trouble of pointing out the details that make it misleading, you say they’re just trying to “talk it away”.

@Shodan

So I suppose my point has been established - one of the reasons for “hatred” of Hilary is that people who were not raised in households characterized by greed and selfishness (as measured by charitable deductions) resent her apparent assumption that they were

Oh, that’s your point now? Funny, you never said a word in your previous posts in this thread linking party-based trends in charitable giving with any alleged “assumptions” on the part of Hillary Clinton. You might want to attempt to actually make that point before you blithely assume that it’s been “established”.

And as for your remaining point:

@Shodan

Republicans tend to be the sort of people who don’t need to be coerced into doing the right thing, and therefore tend to believe that others don’t need to either.

Uh-huh. That’s why Republicans tend to be so opposed to coercing people to abstain from drugs, abortion, and homosexual sex, too. :rolleyes: Yup, the trust of those Republicans in their fellow citizens’ commitment to doing what they consider the “right thing” sure is touching, isn’t it?

[Cat_Fight]

@Shodan

Republicans tend to be the sort of people who don’t need to be coerced into doing the right thing, and therefore tend to believe that others don’t need to either.

This is hilarious. Pure gold. And you didn’t even put quotes around ‘right thing,’ so there’s no chance anyone might argue over the definition of a ‘wrong thing’ (e.g. sex before marriage).

[sciurophobic]

I wonder if the fact that conservatives give more to charities causes them to believe that the government can give less because they assume everyone is as generous as they are.

[Algher]

@sciurophobic

I wonder if the fact that conservatives give more to charities causes them to believe that the government can give less because they assume everyone is as generous as they are.

Religous Libertarian here. I give (both cash and time) because I can make a difference. I do my best to NOT give to the government, because I consider them to be incompetent in much of their aid work.

Many conservatives want to help, say, the poor; but they don’t want the government to do it.

[Leaper]

Interesting polling here. Interesting parts include numbers on folks who say they’d NEVER vote for her: 84% of Republicans (duh), a little over half of married men (hmmmmm…) and about a third of all women (double hmmm).

The article hints that Democrats are getting nervous by numbers like this… Wonder what they’ll actually DO about it…

[Fear_Itself]

@Leaper

Interesting polling here. Interesting parts include numbers on folks who say they’d NEVER vote for her: 84% of Republicans (duh), a little over half of married men (hmmmmm…) and about a third of all women (double hmmm).

Look on the bright side: it also means that 16% of Republicans have not ruled out voting for Hillary. If the Republican candidate loses 16% of the Republican vote, it is unlikely they can be elected.