Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lumin]

I thought this was funny and oh so true.

Excerpt:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

[Wooty]

Edit: Deleting old posts.

[chaoticag]

I wouldn't trust this data quite yet, I don't want to know the amount given but the percentage. On average I expect conservatives to have more money to donate compared to liberals.

Too early to assume anything.

[Cthulhu]

Perhaps it's because Conservatives think charity should be private, while Liberals think the government should do it?

[Aqizzar]

Perhaps it's because Conservatives think charity should be private, while Liberals think the government should do it?

Probably intended as a snipe, it's only thanks to Reaganism that we're always supposed to see the Gov'ment as the badguy.

Or could it be that Liberals tend to be at the poorer end of the scale and can't donate the numbers that rich people can?  One multi-million donation by a conservative baron can skew the result against a few thousand quarters in the Salvation Army jar.  For that matter, did this groundbreaking study (by Google of all institutes) take into account non-monetary charity?  Or anonymous donations?  What about the likely vast amount of charitable donations made with no record of person's political leaning?

Or could it just be that some conservative jagoff took or paid for a biased study and wrote a book to make money off other self-righteous conservative jagoffs?

[lumin]

On average I expect conservatives to have more money to donate compared to liberals.

Too early to assume anything.

I don't have any data to back it up, but I seriously doubt that. 

In the Op-ed Column he states the Catalogue for Philanthropy:

red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

It's common knowledge that per-household income is far higher in Blue states (the northeast in this example) than Red states.

Edit: Here's household income, near bottom of page

8 of the top 10 are strong blue states.

[Davion]

And then there's this critique of the book and the data

[lumin]

And then there's this critique of the book and the data

I like the part where it says:

 

liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

and the part where the reviewer says:

On the whole, I think that Who Really Cares is a valuable book with much sound analysis

[Yanlin]

Perhaps it's because Conservatives think charity should be private, while Liberals think the government should do it?

Probably intended as a snipe, it's only thanks to Reaganism that we're always supposed to see the Gov'ment as the badguy.

Or could it be that Liberals tend to be at the poorer end of the scale and can't donate the numbers that rich people can?  One multi-million donation by a conservative baron can skew the result against a few thousand quarters in the Salvation Army jar.  For that matter, did this groundbreaking study (by Google of all institutes) take into account non-monetary charity?  Or anonymous donations?  What about the likely vast amount of charitable donations made with no record of person's political leaning?

Or could it just be that some conservative jagoff took or paid for a biased study and wrote a book to make money off other self-righteous conservative jagoffs?

EVERYTHING that attempts to make a profit is evil. Especially EA. That is why Today One is GOD.

[Davion]

I like the part where it says:

 

liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

and the part where the reviewer says:

On the whole, I think that Who Really Cares is a valuable book with much sound analysis

I'm partial to:

Brooks’s somewhat misleading reporting continues when he presents the results of the model predicting the dollar amount of donations. Brooks says that in the continuous dollar model, “conservatives are slightly (but distinguishably) more generous than liberals.” (p. 192) Again, this appears to be literally true. But what the model actually shows is that liberals give significantly more money than moderates, while conservatives give significantly more than both moderates and liberals. Moderates would seem to be the ungenerous ones, not liberals.

But saying conservatives are more generous than moderates doesn't sell books.

[lumin]

EVERYTHING that attempts to make a profit is evil. Especially EA. That is why Today One is GOD.

Especially our Congress getting a $4,700 raise in January.  Alas, our government is nothing more than big business.

[lumin]

I'm partial to:

Brooks’s somewhat misleading reporting continues when he presents the results of the model predicting the dollar amount of donations. Brooks says that in the continuous dollar model, “conservatives are slightly (but distinguishably) more generous than liberals.” (p. 192) Again, this appears to be literally true. But what the model actually shows is that liberals give significantly more money than moderates, while conservatives give significantly more than both moderates and liberals. Moderates would seem to be the ungenerous ones, not liberals.

But saying conservatives are more generous than moderates doesn't sell books.

Ummmm...are you reading this correctly? 

It says conservatives give significantly more than both moderates and liberals  What part of "Conservatives give more money than liberals" don't you understand? 

Besides, the catch here is that Liberals are the ones who seem to most often claim to be the champions of the lower-class, not the moderates.  THAT is why it is ironic and does make liberals ungenerous.

They should do a study on the IQ of Liberals vs Conservatives as well.  Seems like this reviewer would tank it if they can't see the irony here.

[Aqizzar]

EVERYTHING that attempts to make a profit is evil. Especially EA. That is why Today One is GOD.

Especially our Congress getting a $4,700 raise in January.  Alas, our government is nothing more than big business.

I thought you were supposed to be the conservative.  Isn't an efficient, business-like government exactly what you wanted.

[lumin]

EVERYTHING that attempts to make a profit is evil. Especially EA. That is why Today One is GOD.

Especially our Congress getting a $4,700 raise in January.  Alas, our government is nothing more than big business.

I thought you were supposed to be the conservative.  Isn't an efficient, business-like government exactly what you wanted.

Efficient?  So you think giving themselves a raise will make them more efficient?

Making more money is a result of efficiency, not a creator of efficiency.  The government has been anything but efficient.

[Aqizzar]

EVERYTHING that attempts to make a profit is evil. Especially EA. That is why Today One is GOD.

Especially our Congress getting a $4,700 raise in January.  Alas, our government is nothing more than big business.

I thought you were supposed to be the conservative.  Isn't an efficient, business-like government exactly what you wanted.

Efficient?  So you think giving themselves a raise will make them more efficient?

Is it efficient when CEOs do the same thing?