Who Really Cares?

[Radio Frequency X]

Who Really Cares - Finally a study proving what I've been saying for years, Liberals don't.

Who cares?

But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, 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. source

The compassion of American conservatives becomes even clearer when we compare the results from the 2004 U.S. presidential election to data on how states address charity. Using Internal Revenue Service data on the percentage of household income given away in each state, we can see that the red states are more charitable than the blue states. For instance, of the twenty-five states that donated a portion of household income above the national average, twenty-four gave a majority of their popular votes to George W. Bush for president; only one gave the election to John F. Kerry. Of the twenty-five states below the national giving average, seventeen went for Kerry, but just seven for Bush

People living in conservative states volunteer more than people in liberal states. In 2003, the residents of the top five “Bush states” were 51 percent more likely to volunteer than those of the bottom five, and they volunteered an average of 12 percent more total hours each year. Residents of these Republican-leaning states volunteered more than twice as much for religious organizations, but also far more for secular causes. For example, they were more than twice as likely to volunteer to help the poor.

Finally, all this talk about how liberals actually care about the poor can be put to rest.

Buy the Book.

I look forward to angry liberal responses about how they are soooo compassionate and conservatives are all evil. I would like to see how they refute the facts of this study.

 

[sparc872]

Could it POSSIBLY be that liberals believe more in government intervention into such matters than do most conservatives? Just maybe? Even a little?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Could it POSSIBLY be that liberals believe more in government intervention into such matters than do most conservatives? Just maybe? Even a little?

You mean, that they leave it up to the government to take other people's money for charity than spending their own? Maybe. Just a little. Personally, I think for all their rhetoric, they don't actually care. They want to feel like they care, without actually having to back up their feelings with actions.

 

[Green Gaia]

I dispute the income quote. I barely make ends meet each month. But I know there are many people who are much worse off than I am. I do care about them and help when I can. I won't list the ways I do that because it doesn't feel right; too much like tooting my own horn, so to speak, which I'm not fond of.

Oh, yeah.. and I'm a liberal. So go ahead, tell me I'm an evil, selfish, rich person who doesn't give a damn about anyone else. I know better.

 

[NuGnostic]

Maybe it's because the conservatives are more guilty about the uncharitable policies they support.
And what was the metholodogy used for this study?

 

[NuGnostic]

Does it really matter,conservatives voted for Bush,this can't make up for that.

 

[KingNothing]

I don't know if the numbers in the study are accurate and I don't really care. I'll concede that conservatives give more to the poor for the sake of argument. I've always felt that the conservative public cares about the poor. But in no way does that mean the policies put forth by conservative politicians are beneficial to the poor. I think both sides are doing a good job of pushing down the poor.

 

[KingNothing]

Also I think it's a pretty low thing to say liberals don't care. Again supposing the numbers are right and libs spend $1200 to the cons $1600. How does spending a little less equal not caring? Somebody has to spend less. Does that mean one side can only ever care? This kind of vocal abuse is pure trash that only hurts the country and helps politicians.

 

[Booko]

Who Really Cares - Finally a study proving what I've been saying for years, Liberals don't.

I'm not a liberal nor do I play one on tv, but this is a fallacious handling of statistics:

But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, 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. source

A better number to look at is the percentage of household income given, not raw numbers of dollars given.

I say this because it's not an unreasonable assumption that people with more money would have more tendency to be conservative, simply because they have more to "conserve."

(I wish I could find the source for this again, but when looking at percentage of income donated, the poorest people come way out front, fairly rich next, and the middle class dead last. The study didn't look at any religious or political affiliations, though.)

 

[NuGnostic]

I don't know about america because politics is weird there but here in europe and most of the rest of the world the leftists in general are poorer than the more right-wing,like in Britain where the labour heartlands are the old industrial centres, so you'd expect the conservatives to be able to give more.
And if the difference is that little then actually the liberals are doing a better job than conservatives.
Although I understand things are different in america as your politics are different to most of the rest of the world.

 

[mr.guy]

Oops! Do church coffers count as charity?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

This is a book everyone should read for a number of reasons:

1. To dump the myth that conservatives don't care about the poor.
2. To encourage liberals to give more.
3. To point out that the poor still give to charity despite their poverty in America, which speaks a lot about Americans.

 

[Willamena]

Ahh... I see that "not caring" is a subjective interpretation, and has nothing to do with any studies. At least, that's the only conclusion I can make from the information presented.

 

[RevOxley_501]

i think we need someone to break up and say


: Please define Liberals X because in the conservative worldview (neocons) liberals can be almost anybody.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

I'd have to wonder about the methodologies used.
I'd also have to wonder whether the book constitutes a genuine and objective academic study or just some hack cooking statistics to try and make a political point (the tone suggests the latter).

But if the book is correct, and "conservatives" really are such Mother Teresa types, then hooray for them. It's a pity their charitable impulses are not reflected in their choice of leaders, who seem to favor third-world style socioeconomic hierarchies.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I'd have to wonder about the methodologies used.
I'd also have to wonder whether the book constitutes a genuine and objective academic study or just some hack cooking statistics to try and make a political point (the tone suggests the latter).

But if the book is correct, and "conservatives" really are such Mother Teresa types, then hooray for them. It's a pity their charitable impulses are not reflected in their choice of leaders, who seem to favor third-world style socioeconomic hierarchies.

Conservatives tend to vote based on their cultural values, and not on political theory. That is why the GOP is so corrupt. However, the author of the book was horrified by his own findings - he is after all, a life long liberal. This book is not meant to boost support for Republicans in any way shape or form. It is simply a statement about the myth surrounding conservatives as being greedy and uncharitable - and the myth that liberals are some how more compassionate to the poor.

The difference is, conservatives want to give of their own money and liberals want to give other people's money through force of government and taxation.

 

[NuGnostic]

Conservatives tend to vote based on their cultural values, and not on political theory. That is why the GOP is so corrupt. However, the author of the book was horrified by his own findings - he is after all, a life long liberal. This book is not meant to boost support for Republicans in any way shape or form. It is simply a statement about the myth surrounding conservatives as being greedy and uncharitable - and the myth that liberals are some how more compassionate to the poor.

The difference is, conservatives want to give of their own money and liberals want to give other people's money through force of government and taxation.

Are liberals not the poor?

 

[MaddLlama]

Does the author talk about the different types of charities that were donated to by both sides in addition to how much was donated?

 

[doppelganger]

This also equates "caring" with "money" in a typically "conservative" base and crude manner. What isn't considered is the amount of time and skill volunteered by people to make a difference. Money doesn't do anything by itself. All of the liberals I personally know invest THEMSELVES in the things they believe in. I volunteer legal services for several causes.

 

[doppelganger]

Does the author talk about the different types of charities that were donated to by both sides in addition to how much was donated?

Good point. I wonder if tithing was included.

Update: I checked the link. I haven't read the book or seen the data but the claim is based on non-religious charitable donations.