Charity's Political Divide
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
By Ben Gose
It's been a tough month for conservatives, with the Republican Party losing control of both houses of Congress, but a new book
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALSO SEE:
TEXT: How to Increase Giving
ARTICLE: How an Author's Views on Giving Evolved
MAPS: How Politics and Charitable Giving Mix
LIVE DISCUSSION: Read the transcript of a live discussion with Arthur C. Brooks who discussed his new book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
being released this week may help brighten their spirits.
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."
"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."
Some scholars say Who Really Cares builds on the work of Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, which was published in 2000.
'Call to Action for the Left'
Mr. Brooks is Roman Catholic and politically independent, and has registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past decade. In an interview, he says he set out to write a book about values and philanthropy, with no hidden agenda.
He believes liberal Democrats must ignore their leaders who sometimes disdain charity, and demonstrate that the Democratic Party is still welcoming to people of faith, if they hope to prove that they are, in fact, the more compassionate party.
"This book is a call to action for the left, not a celebration of the right," Mr. Brooks says.
That's a claim that some liberals may have a tough time believing, given Mr. Brooks's withering criticism in the book of liberal icons like Ralph Nader, Mr. Brooks's work for The Wall Street Journal's famously conservative op-ed page, and a promotional tour for the book that reads like a conservative coming-out party. There's a keynote address at a Manhattan Institute for Policy Research dinner, a book signing at the American Enterprise Institute, and an interviews with John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 and radio talk-show host Michael Medved — two people known for conservative views.
Patrick Rooney, director of research at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, says Mr. Brooks's inclusion of strongly worded personal opinions is "a doubled-edged blade."
"He will certainly get more attention," Mr. Rooney says. "But at the same time, it might invite more criticism and skepticism."
Mr. Brooks says he is ready to take the heat. "If I did my job, this will stimulate a whole bunch of new work," he says. "In five years, I'd be delighted to say that in certain ways, I was wrong."
Arts and Philanthropy
Mr. Brooks, 42, grew up in Seattle, the children of college professors, and after college worked as a professional French-horn player in orchestras in Annapolis, Md., and Spain. In 1998, he earned a Ph.D. in economics from the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School, in Santa Monica, Calif.
In his research, he has focused on the arts and charitable giving. Few economists have focused on philanthropy, he says, leaving plenty of "low-hanging fruit" for a young scholar.
He kept his head down during the early years of his academic career, publishing the usual economics fare on philanthropy — such as how tax rates and government spending affect giving.
"I made my academic career doing that stuff, but the whole time I knew I was missing something," he says.
Mr. Brooks, now a full professor and director of nonprofit studies at Syracuse's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, wanted to move beyond the financial incentives and deterrents to giving, and instead examine the values that underlie philanthropy.
His initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. 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.
He writes that religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change.
"There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people," Mr. Brooks says. "The fact is, if it weren't for religious people in your community, the PTA would shut down."
Byron R. Johnson, a sociology professor and co-director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, says he recently gathered data that show similar results — such as high levels of civic engagement among religious people — while assembling a report on faith in America that was released in September.
"It was not surprising to me that the lil ol' farmer in South Dakota outgave people in San Francisco," Mr. Johnson says. "But I think to the everyday citizen, this might strike them as counterintuitive."
The first draft of the book focused mostly on religion. Lara Heimert, Mr. Brooks's editor at Basic Books, told him there was "an elephant in the room" — his failure to grapple with the connections between politics and giving.
Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that 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.
The book includes a "charity map" of the United States that closely resembles the now-famous electoral map showing blue and red states. 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.
At the outset of his research, Mr. Brooks had assumed that those who favor a large role for government would be most likely to give to charity. But in fact, the opposite is true.
Several times throughout the book, Mr. Brooks quotes Mr. Nader, the political activist, who said during his 2000 presidential campaign: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."
Mr. Brooks calls it a "bitter irony" that those favoring income redistribution are not doing much redistributing from their own bank accounts — and he blames liberal leaders like Mr. Nader for letting liberals off the hook.
"In essence, for many Americans, political opinions are a substitute for personal checks," Mr. Brooks writes.
In an interview, Mr. Nader, who had not seen an advance copy of Who Really Cares, says he has a tough time believing that Mr. Brooks's conclusions about weak giving among liberals are accurate.
"If you look at the liberal environmental and antipoverty groups, you don't see counterparts on the right wing," he says.
"Everyone could be giving more to charity," Mr. Nader says. "I don't think liberals give enough, and I don't think conservatives give enough."
Alan J. Abramson, director of the nonprofit-research program at the Aspen Institute, a Washington think tank, questions whether Mr. Brooks is putting too much stock in data on giving, which Mr. Abramson describes as "mushy." He notes that surveys on giving put the percentage of American households who give to charity at between 50 percent and 80 percent — an incredibly wide range.
"If somebody called you up and asked you how much you gave last year, God knows what number you would pull out of the air," he says.
Mr. Brooks writes in the appendix that he tried to overcome this problem by using 15 sets of data, based on surveys conducted with individuals in person, over the phone, or through the mail. Every survey led to the same conclusions. "While individual surveys and populations might produce inaccuracies and biases, a large body of evidence is more trustworthy," he writes.
Mr. Abramson also argues that scholars will need to examine the data more closely to determine whether conservative and religious donors are more compassionate — which doesn't necessarily follow from giving more.
Much religious giving is akin to paying dues at a club; it goes for such things as paying salaries and keeping the lights on. And in their secular giving, Mr. Abramson says, it is conceivable that conservative and religious people may be more likely than liberal donors to give to charities like colleges and hospitals, which do not focus mainly on serving the poor. "Even if conservatives or religious people are more generous in that they give more, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're giving redistributively," Mr. Abramson says.
Mr. Brooks says the data show that religious people, on average, give 54 percent more per year than secular people to human-welfare charities. Some of those charities may be religiously affiliated, but their work is focused on charity and not religion, he says.
Giving by the Poor
In his book, Mr. Brooks examines giving among the poor. When looking at households with equivalent income, the working poor give three times as much as welfare recipients. Mr. Brooks writes that the very act of receiving welfare may make recipients more liberal — and hence less likely to give.
But other differences between the working poor and those on welfare may explain the giving gap, says Paul G. Schervish, director of the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. Research shows that welfare recipients are less involved in their communities than the working poor. "What causes giving is associations," he says. "The people on welfare may be more isolated in terms of their networks."
As he builds his statistical case, Mr. Brooks occasionally unleashes free-market rhetoric. He calls giving as "a bucket with no leaks" — meaning that it helps both the giver and the receiver — and at times seems to argue that all government spending on social programs is suspect, given its potential to "crowd out" private giving.
"Some people will always say that government spending (based on taxes) is necessary to pay for things that private charity will not," he writes. "This may be true. But we must remember that taxation has some very destructive consequences for communities and for the nation as a whole. Charity, in contrast, has only the upside."
Rev. Jim Wallis, a Christian writer and political activist, says such comments betray a naïveté about how antipoverty programs are supported. Both philanthropy and government spending are important, he says, but the spending by government on welfare and social-service programs dwarfs the money that donors and foundations bring to the table.
"Religious people who are generous can be used by the political right to justify government not playing its rightful role," Mr. Wallis says. "The right should not use our generosity to justify their irresponsibility."
Near the end of the book, Mr. Brooks lays out the case that philanthropy is as good for the donor as for the receiver, citing data showing that giving makes one happier and healthier.
Fund raisers should take heart in such data, he argues. Their appeals are putting potential donors on the path to a better life. "This is one of the most noble things that you can do," Mr. Brooks says.
Such findings have affected the way he and his wife approach their own giving, which he calls "our duty and our privilege."
The couple has set up a donor-advised fund at the Central New York Community Foundation to become more systematic about their philanthropy.
"I'm tithing my royalties assiduously," Mr. Brooks says.
HOW TO INCREASE GIVING
In his book Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, recommends numerous ways to increase charitable giving in the United States. Following is a summary of his recommendations:
Government should:
Think twice before directly subsidizing nonprofit organizations, or investing in programs that increase economic equality. Such spending often "crowds out" private giving.
Reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies that inhibit charitable activity, including "onerous legal requirements, punitive mandatory expenditures, and impossible hiring practices."
Allow all people to deduct charitable contributions on their tax returns, rather than only the more-affluent people who itemize. Limiting tax breaks to people who itemize favors not only the rich, but also their preferred charities — such as private universities — over the religious organizations that poor people are more likely to support.
Encourage fund raising among charities by giving more government money to organizations that take fund raising seriously.
Charities should:
Be unapologetic about raising funds, since data show that donors gain as much from the exchange of funds — by becoming happier and healthier — as the organizations they are supporting.
Individuals should:
Teach philanthropic behavior to their children, either by discussing giving as a family or by taking the children to a house of worship.
Support organized programs, such as Common Cents, in New York, that allow youths to gather funds from friends and family and experience what it's like to be a philanthropist.
Liberals should:
Ignore comments from people on the left wing of the Democratic Party who belittle the importance of charity.
Be wary of the idea that government offers the best solution to social issues, since such a viewpoint may weaken one's own resolve to take action or give away money.
Work to make the Democratic Party friendlier to religion, since religious people give more to charity than secular people do.
— Ben Gose
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
By Ben Gose
It's been a tough month for conservatives, with the Republican Party losing control of both houses of Congress, but a new book
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALSO SEE:
TEXT: How to Increase Giving
ARTICLE: How an Author's Views on Giving Evolved
MAPS: How Politics and Charitable Giving Mix
LIVE DISCUSSION: Read the transcript of a live discussion with Arthur C. Brooks who discussed his new book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
being released this week may help brighten their spirits.
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."
"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."
Some scholars say Who Really Cares builds on the work of Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, which was published in 2000.
'Call to Action for the Left'
Mr. Brooks is Roman Catholic and politically independent, and has registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past decade. In an interview, he says he set out to write a book about values and philanthropy, with no hidden agenda.
He believes liberal Democrats must ignore their leaders who sometimes disdain charity, and demonstrate that the Democratic Party is still welcoming to people of faith, if they hope to prove that they are, in fact, the more compassionate party.
"This book is a call to action for the left, not a celebration of the right," Mr. Brooks says.
That's a claim that some liberals may have a tough time believing, given Mr. Brooks's withering criticism in the book of liberal icons like Ralph Nader, Mr. Brooks's work for The Wall Street Journal's famously conservative op-ed page, and a promotional tour for the book that reads like a conservative coming-out party. There's a keynote address at a Manhattan Institute for Policy Research dinner, a book signing at the American Enterprise Institute, and an interviews with John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 and radio talk-show host Michael Medved — two people known for conservative views.
Patrick Rooney, director of research at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, says Mr. Brooks's inclusion of strongly worded personal opinions is "a doubled-edged blade."
"He will certainly get more attention," Mr. Rooney says. "But at the same time, it might invite more criticism and skepticism."
Mr. Brooks says he is ready to take the heat. "If I did my job, this will stimulate a whole bunch of new work," he says. "In five years, I'd be delighted to say that in certain ways, I was wrong."
Arts and Philanthropy
Mr. Brooks, 42, grew up in Seattle, the children of college professors, and after college worked as a professional French-horn player in orchestras in Annapolis, Md., and Spain. In 1998, he earned a Ph.D. in economics from the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School, in Santa Monica, Calif.
In his research, he has focused on the arts and charitable giving. Few economists have focused on philanthropy, he says, leaving plenty of "low-hanging fruit" for a young scholar.
He kept his head down during the early years of his academic career, publishing the usual economics fare on philanthropy — such as how tax rates and government spending affect giving.
"I made my academic career doing that stuff, but the whole time I knew I was missing something," he says.
Mr. Brooks, now a full professor and director of nonprofit studies at Syracuse's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, wanted to move beyond the financial incentives and deterrents to giving, and instead examine the values that underlie philanthropy.
His initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. 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.
He writes that religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change.
"There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people," Mr. Brooks says. "The fact is, if it weren't for religious people in your community, the PTA would shut down."
Byron R. Johnson, a sociology professor and co-director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, says he recently gathered data that show similar results — such as high levels of civic engagement among religious people — while assembling a report on faith in America that was released in September.
"It was not surprising to me that the lil ol' farmer in South Dakota outgave people in San Francisco," Mr. Johnson says. "But I think to the everyday citizen, this might strike them as counterintuitive."
The first draft of the book focused mostly on religion. Lara Heimert, Mr. Brooks's editor at Basic Books, told him there was "an elephant in the room" — his failure to grapple with the connections between politics and giving.
Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that 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.
The book includes a "charity map" of the United States that closely resembles the now-famous electoral map showing blue and red states. 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.
At the outset of his research, Mr. Brooks had assumed that those who favor a large role for government would be most likely to give to charity. But in fact, the opposite is true.
Several times throughout the book, Mr. Brooks quotes Mr. Nader, the political activist, who said during his 2000 presidential campaign: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."
Mr. Brooks calls it a "bitter irony" that those favoring income redistribution are not doing much redistributing from their own bank accounts — and he blames liberal leaders like Mr. Nader for letting liberals off the hook.
"In essence, for many Americans, political opinions are a substitute for personal checks," Mr. Brooks writes.
In an interview, Mr. Nader, who had not seen an advance copy of Who Really Cares, says he has a tough time believing that Mr. Brooks's conclusions about weak giving among liberals are accurate.
"If you look at the liberal environmental and antipoverty groups, you don't see counterparts on the right wing," he says.
"Everyone could be giving more to charity," Mr. Nader says. "I don't think liberals give enough, and I don't think conservatives give enough."
Alan J. Abramson, director of the nonprofit-research program at the Aspen Institute, a Washington think tank, questions whether Mr. Brooks is putting too much stock in data on giving, which Mr. Abramson describes as "mushy." He notes that surveys on giving put the percentage of American households who give to charity at between 50 percent and 80 percent — an incredibly wide range.
"If somebody called you up and asked you how much you gave last year, God knows what number you would pull out of the air," he says.
Mr. Brooks writes in the appendix that he tried to overcome this problem by using 15 sets of data, based on surveys conducted with individuals in person, over the phone, or through the mail. Every survey led to the same conclusions. "While individual surveys and populations might produce inaccuracies and biases, a large body of evidence is more trustworthy," he writes.
Mr. Abramson also argues that scholars will need to examine the data more closely to determine whether conservative and religious donors are more compassionate — which doesn't necessarily follow from giving more.
Much religious giving is akin to paying dues at a club; it goes for such things as paying salaries and keeping the lights on. And in their secular giving, Mr. Abramson says, it is conceivable that conservative and religious people may be more likely than liberal donors to give to charities like colleges and hospitals, which do not focus mainly on serving the poor. "Even if conservatives or religious people are more generous in that they give more, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're giving redistributively," Mr. Abramson says.
Mr. Brooks says the data show that religious people, on average, give 54 percent more per year than secular people to human-welfare charities. Some of those charities may be religiously affiliated, but their work is focused on charity and not religion, he says.
Giving by the Poor
In his book, Mr. Brooks examines giving among the poor. When looking at households with equivalent income, the working poor give three times as much as welfare recipients. Mr. Brooks writes that the very act of receiving welfare may make recipients more liberal — and hence less likely to give.
But other differences between the working poor and those on welfare may explain the giving gap, says Paul G. Schervish, director of the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. Research shows that welfare recipients are less involved in their communities than the working poor. "What causes giving is associations," he says. "The people on welfare may be more isolated in terms of their networks."
As he builds his statistical case, Mr. Brooks occasionally unleashes free-market rhetoric. He calls giving as "a bucket with no leaks" — meaning that it helps both the giver and the receiver — and at times seems to argue that all government spending on social programs is suspect, given its potential to "crowd out" private giving.
"Some people will always say that government spending (based on taxes) is necessary to pay for things that private charity will not," he writes. "This may be true. But we must remember that taxation has some very destructive consequences for communities and for the nation as a whole. Charity, in contrast, has only the upside."
Rev. Jim Wallis, a Christian writer and political activist, says such comments betray a naïveté about how antipoverty programs are supported. Both philanthropy and government spending are important, he says, but the spending by government on welfare and social-service programs dwarfs the money that donors and foundations bring to the table.
"Religious people who are generous can be used by the political right to justify government not playing its rightful role," Mr. Wallis says. "The right should not use our generosity to justify their irresponsibility."
Near the end of the book, Mr. Brooks lays out the case that philanthropy is as good for the donor as for the receiver, citing data showing that giving makes one happier and healthier.
Fund raisers should take heart in such data, he argues. Their appeals are putting potential donors on the path to a better life. "This is one of the most noble things that you can do," Mr. Brooks says.
Such findings have affected the way he and his wife approach their own giving, which he calls "our duty and our privilege."
The couple has set up a donor-advised fund at the Central New York Community Foundation to become more systematic about their philanthropy.
"I'm tithing my royalties assiduously," Mr. Brooks says.
HOW TO INCREASE GIVING
In his book Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, recommends numerous ways to increase charitable giving in the United States. Following is a summary of his recommendations:
Government should:
Think twice before directly subsidizing nonprofit organizations, or investing in programs that increase economic equality. Such spending often "crowds out" private giving.
Reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies that inhibit charitable activity, including "onerous legal requirements, punitive mandatory expenditures, and impossible hiring practices."
Allow all people to deduct charitable contributions on their tax returns, rather than only the more-affluent people who itemize. Limiting tax breaks to people who itemize favors not only the rich, but also their preferred charities — such as private universities — over the religious organizations that poor people are more likely to support.
Encourage fund raising among charities by giving more government money to organizations that take fund raising seriously.
Charities should:
Be unapologetic about raising funds, since data show that donors gain as much from the exchange of funds — by becoming happier and healthier — as the organizations they are supporting.
Individuals should:
Teach philanthropic behavior to their children, either by discussing giving as a family or by taking the children to a house of worship.
Support organized programs, such as Common Cents, in New York, that allow youths to gather funds from friends and family and experience what it's like to be a philanthropist.
Liberals should:
Ignore comments from people on the left wing of the Democratic Party who belittle the importance of charity.
Be wary of the idea that government offers the best solution to social issues, since such a viewpoint may weaken one's own resolve to take action or give away money.
Work to make the Democratic Party friendlier to religion, since religious people give more to charity than secular people do.
— Ben Gose
Great example of the poorly educated ignoramus definitely making less than 250k a year and whinning about other peoples money.
This guy obviously doesnt even understand the meaning of the word socialism. (Reminds me of some clown shown on HBo's Right American asked to explain socialism on camera and the buffoon pulls out his blackberry of some gadget and asks for the interviewer for time to look up the "insult" he is slinging at Obama)
Come back to this clown and simply ask him, the difference between capitalism and socialism is a few percentage points increase in the tax rate for the wealthy 1% of the nation? (Is he telling us that the prosperous bill clinton era tax rates we were living in a socialist state and didnt know it? Why didnt the money run out then? How in the heck did Bill clinton end up with even more money and even had a budget surplus if his bogus claim is true?
(Of course he will not answer that simple question. He is probably going to come up with some joke about man on man fellatio like pretty much all republicans on this forum do when faced with tough questions.)
<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rnK84mM5N-o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rnK84mM5N-o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>
Typical republican baboon who thinks that that welfare money comes from the freakin tooth fairy! And this is one of the fools leading the new republican party!
HA!
Typical republican baboon who thinks that that welfare money comes from the freakin tooth fairy! And this is one of the fools leading the new republican party!
HA!
The problem is that regardless of what study said which party gives more to charity, the bottom line is it isn't enough. The middle class is guilty of giving the least amount. The poor actually give a higher percentage of their incomes to charity than the liberal or conservative rich. Which is shameful.. And I'm betting that the majority of those poor aren't even registered voters. And their certainly not giving their money for a tax writeoff.
Joe the Plummer is fucking tool and a welfare rat who doenst know his has fro m a hole in the ground. He was a creature created by the McCain camp and he reflects that perfectly when he speaks. So what the fuck is your point? Both partys are socialists, why is that hard for you to wrap your brain around?
hno:Joe the Plummer is fucking tool and a welfare rat who doenst know his has fro m a hole in the ground. He was a creature created by the McCain camp and he reflects that perfectly when he speaks. So what the fuck is your point? Both partys are socialists, why is that hard for you to wrap your brain around?
OMG... So the USA has been a socialist country since conception...WTF..
My point is that you, just like joe the plumber dont know the fucking meaning of the word you are using(or abusing in this case).
You have no clue what the word means, you just blabber on like a fool!
Do all a favor pick up a fucking book educate yourself on basic politics before you run your mouth about something you obviously dont understand!
I thought this was common knowledge. But if you need a cut and paste here you go:<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>digg_title = 'Poor Give More to Charity';digg_bgcolor = 'transparent';digg_skin = 'compact';digg_window = 'new';</SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<!-- Start ad tag portfolio.dart/news-markets/national-news/portfolio;sect=news-markets;yr=2008;mo=02;cat=news-markets;aid=dcr0ad29c2ab3321be73ac72b269425ad04;pos=sharesponsor;sz=88x31; -->
<LABEL>
</LABEL>
<!-- Start ad tag portfolio.dart/news-markets/national-news/portfolio;sect=news-markets;yr=2008;mo=02;cat=news-markets;aid=dcr0ad29c2ab3321be73ac72b269425ad04;refer=email;sz=88x31; -->
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript> var tid = gup( 'TID' ); if (tid != '' && (tid == 'yhoopartner' || tid == 'aolpartner')) { if (tid == 'yhoopartner') { var txt = 'Yahoo! Finance'; } else { var txt = 'AOL Money & Finance' } if (document.referrer && document.referrer != ""){ document.write('
Back To '+ txt +' '); } } </SCRIPT>The Poor Give More
by Arthur C. Brooks
<!-- /#byline_wrapper -->Surprising findings show that low-wage earners step up to the charity plate big-time.
Alms From the Working Class 
Illustration by: Post Typography
Charitable giving is an American tradition. Surveys consistently find that between 65 and 85 percent of U.S. families make charitable donations each year, and we give away more than twice as much per capita as the citizens of even the most generous European nations. According to the Center on Philanthropy Panel Study, the average American family that gave to charity in 2002 donated $1,917. And contrary to what some might assume, this giving does not all—or even mostly—support houses of worship. The Giving U.S.A. Foundation reports that only about a third of individual gifts go toward religious causes; the rest are earmarked for secular concerns like education and health.
As impressive as these numbers are, there are still about 30 million American families that do not give charitably. Why not? According to Independent Sector's 2001 Giving and Volunteering in the United States survey of 4,000 households, common excuses include not being asked and fear that contributions will be used inefficiently by nonprofits. But the most common explanation for the lack of giving is a perceived deficiency of means: Two-thirds of nondonors say that they simply cannot afford to give. This sounds reasonable. There are plenty of Americans having trouble making ends meet, so why give away what little money they have? Thus we can logically assume that most of the Americans who don't give are poor, right?
Wrong. In fact, Americans at the bottom of the income-distribution pyramid are the country's biggest givers per capita. (View average household donations and the percentage of income donated to charity.) The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that households with incomes below $20,000 gave a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than did any other income group: 4.6 percent, on average. As income increased, the percentage given away declined: Households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 donated 2.5 percent or less. Only at high income levels did the percentage begin to rise again: For households with incomes over $100,000, the number was 3.1 percent.
Like I've stated here a few times before, I may be a liberal on social issues, but fisically I'm fairly conservative. I've never liked wasteful spending. And I don't it when people make a living off of the welfare system. But the question you need to ask yourself is do you end the welfare of the truely needy because of the behavior of the others? I don't think so. I don't believe in collateral damage.
I was quoting Margeret Thatcher. I guess she is poorly educated. A few percentage points? How is the difference between being taxed 40% and the poor who actually get several thousand dollars back a few percentage points?
Wow you really made yourself look dumb on that one.
And Bill Clinton had the coincidence of the dot.com boom which made the economy look great for a few years. But we all know how that ended. Typical thinking. What is it like to know your views cant stand up to simple reasoning?
The problem is that regardless of what study said which party gives more to charity, the bottom line is it isn't enough.
By what standards? You get into a slipperly slope when you start determining what amount is "enough" for another person to do with their own money. The definition of charity is when someone voluntarily donates something of value to someone else. Therefore, you can't force a person to be charitable. It's like getting pissed off at someone when you ask them for a favor and they say no. You really have no right to get angry and have to respect their answer.
The middle class is guilty of giving the least amount.
So giving nothing to charity is a crime? I disagree. Sorry, it's not my responsibility to take care of my fellow man...it's his responsibility to take care of himself. He shouldn't demand anything from me, and I certainly don't demand anything from anyone. No one is "owed" anything just because they're in this world. Granted, there are some people who can not look after themselves and they do deserve our help. But that's a very small percentage of the population.
Someone asked in another thread the definition of a republican. Let me give you a key trait of a typical liberal: they're very generous with other people's money.
By what standards? You get into a slipperly slope when you start determining what amount is "enough" for another person to do with their own money. The definition of charity is when someone voluntarily donates something of value to someone else. Therefore, you can't force a person to be charitable. It's like getting pissed off at someone when you ask them for a favor and they say no. You really have no right to get angry and have to respect their answer.
The middle class is guilty of giving the least amount.
So giving nothing to charity is a crime? I disagree. Sorry, it's not my responsibility to take care of my fellow man...it's his responsibility to take care of himself. He shouldn't demand anything from me, and I certainly don't demand anything from anyone. No one is "owed" anything just because they're in this world. Granted, there are some people who can not look after themselves and they do deserve our help. But that's a very small percentage of the population.
Someone asked in another thread the definition of a republican. Let me give you a key trait of a typical liberal: they're very generous with other people's money.
Wrong. In fact, Americans at the bottom of the income-distribution pyramid are the country's biggest givers per capita. (View average household donations and the percentage of income donated to charity.) The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that households with incomes below $20,000 gave a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than did any other income group: 4.6 percent, on average. As income increased, the percentage given away declined: Households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 donated 2.5 percent or less. Only at high income levels did the percentage begin to rise again: For households with incomes over $100,000, the number was 3.1 percent.[/quote]
<IFRAME src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.php?u=http%3A//forum.therx.com/newreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26p%3D6486022&s=compact&t=Poor%20Give%20More%20to%20Charity&w=new&k=transparent" frameBorder=0 width=120 scrolling=no height=18></IFRAME>
Could it be that the middle class would donate more if they weren't taxed at a higher rate than the lower class and also received all the government perks?
<IFRAME src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.php?u=http%3A//forum.therx.com/newreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26p%3D6486022&s=compact&t=Poor%20Give%20More%20to%20Charity&w=new&k=transparent" frameBorder=0 width=120 scrolling=no height=18></IFRAME>
Could it be that the middle class would donate more if they weren't taxed at a higher rate than the lower class and also received all the government perks?
You stated before that democrats are helpful to the poor people and I was merely trying to get the point across that although the dems are very very generous to poor people in social programs, it does not necessary mean they are doing them right in the long run. Keeping them dependant on govt. handouts, to me, is not being helpful. However it does keep them voting democrat. They have them brainwashed that if they vote republican, the free ride will end.
