Other peoples money

[dude1394]

Who'd a thunk it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...prod=permalink

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

Article Tools Sponsored By
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 20, 2008

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof
On the Ground

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.
Go to Columnist Page »

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

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.”

[alexamenos]

We've been down this subject before -- I think it's particularly telling (as Kristoff points out) that "conservatives" are also more inclined to give time and blood.

Anybody that has been heavily involved in any kind of institution can tell you that sooner or later people heavily involved with an institution come to care as much about the institution as it's purpose. Liberals, it seems to me, care more about government than the people government is supposed to help.

and...

what's so "compassionate" about wanting someone else to give their money to somebody else? I'd like for you to buy my family christmas presents this year....does that make me a compassionate guy?

[wmbwinn]

The Heaviest Element Known to Science
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

We've been down this subject before -- I think it's particularly telling (as Kristoff points out) that "conservatives" are also more inclined to give time and blood.

Anybody that has been heavily involved in any kind of institution can tell you that sooner or later people heavily involved with an institution come to care as much about the institution as it's purpose. Liberals, it seems to me, care more about government than the people government is supposed to help.

and...

what's so "compassionate" about wanting someone else to give their money to somebody else? I'd like for you to buy my family christmas presents this year....does that make me a compassionate guy?

yes, we discussed the issue of Biden not contributing anything to charity. We found that McCain and Palin had.

Generates a lot of animosity.

Basically, liberals think that we should tax rich people and let the government redistribute the money to help people out. Charity is the job of Obama and company.

Conservatives go to church and think that service should be done personally and without acclaim or notice. Conservatives think service is a moral obligation and is the job of good people.

[92bDad]

Perhaps we could see true colors, if we created some type of code, that people should give with an equal or greater amount as they are taxed.

Let's see how quickly the liberals would be pushing for lower taxes then???

[Mavdog]

some tidbits from the article..

"there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays." interesting that the group who suffers discrimination the most is the one who donates most.

"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." ahh, so if the $ that conservatives give to churches- which from the looks of things is not money that is given to the less fortunate but rather more often than not money given to construct bigger and bigger edifices- the whole basis of the assertion of the article is negated.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

some tidbits from the article..

"there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays." interesting that the group who suffers discrimination the most is the one who donates most.

"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." ahh, so if the $ that conservatives give to churches- which from the looks of things is not money that is given to the less fortunate but rather more often than not money given to construct bigger and bigger edifices- the whole basis of the assertion of the article is negated.

Hmm... ofcourse giving to chruches is no real charity...

[dude1394]

It's not how much you give to charity...it's the "correctness" of the charity...dontcha' know.

[chumdawg]

If anyone believes that "conservatives" are more charitable by nature than "liberals" are, they have checked their sense of reason at the door.

It's one of the things that defines the separation between the two, after all.

[dude1394]

Survey Says..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Survey Says..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html
"Brooks, a registered independent"

I'll call that pure bs. brooks is a "visiting scholar" at the american enterprise institute, which is anythong BUT independent.

again, the true falacy in the survey by brooks is calling $ given to churches "charity". take that out and it's a different outcome than what is being put forth.

by including church donations in the computation, brooks pretty much slants the survey in the direction that he wanted.

[chumdawg]

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

If we are trying to draw broad conclusions about the two groups, the average may not give us the best analysis. Were there people at the top end--like, say, a Bill Gates--who skewed the average? At the very least, it would be helpful to see the mean. And at best, we would like to know the mean of the percentage income given. There are a number of moving parts here.

Still and all, it's a pointless exercise. Ask yourself what type of person is likely to pass a beggar and give a dollar and what type of person is likely to pass that beggar and say, "Get a job."

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If we are trying to draw broad conclusions about the two groups, the average may not give us the best analysis. Were there people at the top end--like, say, a Bill Gates--who skewed the average? At the very least, it would be helpful to see the mean. And at best, we would like to know the mean of the percentage income given. There are a number of moving parts here.

Still and all, it's a pointless exercise. Ask yourself what type of person is likely to pass a beggar and give a dollar and what type of person is likely to pass that beggar and say, "Get a job."

What does the reaction to a beggar have to do with someone's willingness to give to a charity? There are plenty of charities for someone to give to even if their opinion of beggars and homeless is that they "should get a job".

And let's please leave the quotes off of the word charity when we refer to people giving to churches. Churches are charities. I'm sure some churches dont' seem like it, but I'm sure all secular charities are not created equal either. The money I give to my church does a lot of people a lot of good.

[dude1394]

Don't be such a "church" hata'.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

What does the reaction to a beggar have to do with someone's willingness to give to a charity? There are plenty of charities for someone to give to even if their opinion of beggars and homeless is that they "should get a job".

I don't get where you are coming from. What are the charities to give to that are not only different from, but in the context of our discussion more deserving than, street people?

And let's please leave the quotes off of the word charity when we refer to people giving to churches. Churches are charities. I'm sure some churches dont' seem like it, but I'm sure all secular charities are not created equal either. The money I give to my church does a lot of people a lot of good.

"Churches are charities" is a bigger claim than I think you want to make.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't get where you are coming from. What are the charities to give to that are not only different from, but in the context of our discussion more deserving than, street people?

If someone is in a healthy condition and able to work, why should he not get a job? It's a whole other story when we're talking about veterans who lost their legs or other disabled people.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Arne

If someone is in a healthy condition and able to work, why should he not get a job? It's a whole other story when we're talking about veterans who lost their legs or other disabled people.

I agree with you, why should he not get a job. In fact, I think there should be good jobs for every good American. He should be able to pick and choose, for that matter.

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, though. Is there full employment in Germany?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't get where you are coming from. What are the charities to give to that are not only different from, but in the context of our discussion more deserving than, street people?

"Churches are charities" is a bigger claim than I think you want to make.

I have to agree with jthig here. Churches do a lot of charitable work, therefore can be considered a charity.

From dictionary.com

char⋅i⋅ty

1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3. a charitable act or work.
4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.
6. leniency in judging others; forbearance: She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity.
7. Christian love; agape.

How many churches do you know of who do NOT participate in the kinds of activities listed above?

If I pay tithes and offerings to my church, and my church uses that money to aid those in need, how is that not charitable? How is my contribution anything other than charity?

[wmbwinn]

no one posted any links or documents to support the statement that excluding churches that libs give more charity than conservs.

But... let examine the arguement. Basically, several of you are saying that liberals give more to charity if and only if we eliminate gifts to churches. So... does that mean liberals don't go to church? Or does that mean that liberals that do go to church don't contribute/donate to the church? Either way, you are forming a conclusion that the Dem party has been trying to fight.

It was obvious that Obama and Hillary and the National Dem Convention very much wanted the nation to see that Liberals/Dems go to church too and that Conservs/Reps don't have a monopoly on the Church issue.

Now, it became funny to me to watch Obama dance between wanting to appear Christian and wanting to distance himself from the Reverend and Church that converted him from Islam towards Christianity.

Anyway, I find it interesting to see some of you arguing that Church is shit and that Dems don't support churches. I hope you are successful in getting your message out. A lot of Church going persons voted for Obama.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I have to agree with jthig here. Churches do a lot of charitable work, therefore can be considered a charity.

Roll off some citations here, whether it's your church or another you know of.

I am not under the impression that churches are in the business of taking money from parishioners and redistributing it to outsiders.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Roll off some citations here, whether it's your church or another you know of.

I am not under the impression that churches are in the business of taking money from parishioners and redistributing it to outsiders.

Research Catholic Charities to start with. You are truly demonstrating a high degree of ignorance.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Research Catholic Charities to start with. You are truly demonstrating a high degree of ignorance.

If I'm ignorant, that's fine. I'm certainly ignorant of a lot of things, so I don't take it as an insult. Educate me. Show me where the money goes.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Roll off some citations here, whether it's your church or another you know of.

I am not under the impression that churches are in the business of taking money from parishioners and redistributing it to outsiders.

Wow, you're completely ignorant of the charitable work done by churches on behalf of "outsiders"?

Let's see here, ever heard of the Salvation Army? You know, those obnoxious bell ringers at Wal Mart. What is that money used for? I wonder....

Let's go back to Hurricane Katrina. How many churches gave aid to the victims? How many churches sent people to Louisiana and Mississippi to help with the cleanup? Did you go help with the cleanup with your church? My brother and I did.

The LDS Church (mormons) have been involved in cleanup/relief efforts in just about every natural disaster in recent history (Katrina, that Tsunami a couple of years ago, etc).

How many Catholic charities are there in third world countries? I don't have the exact number, but there are many.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If I'm ignorant, that's fine. I'm certainly ignorant of a lot of things, so I don't take it as an insult. Educate me. Show me where the money goes.

http://www.catholiccharities-md.org/...habetical.html

go to that link. place your mouse over the top heading "services"; note the drop down options to research.

have fun.

[wmbwinn]

Church groups send persons and money and equipment to Africa and many other places to drill water wells, teach agriculture, etc. They send doctors to these places with donated medication.

You just have no idea what REAL churches do. I'm not talking about Obama's Reverend...

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

http://www.catholiccharities-md.org/...habetical.html

go to that link. place your mouse over the top heading "services"; note the drop down options to research.

have fun.

Here's another...

http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf

hover your mouse of "Programs That Help"

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Wow, you're completely ignorant of the charitable work done by churches on behalf of "outsiders"?

Let's see here, ever heard of the Salvation Army? You know, those obnoxious bell ringers at Wal Mart. What is that money used for? I wonder....

Let's go back to Hurricane Katrina. How many churches gave aid to the victims? How many churches sent people to Louisiana and Mississippi to help with the cleanup? Did you go help with the cleanup with your church? My brother and I did.

The LDS Church (mormons) have been involved in cleanup/relief efforts in just about every natural disaster in recent history (Katrina, that Tsunami a couple of years ago, etc).

How many Catholic charities are there in third world countries? I don't have the exact number, but there are many.

I think what I'm hearing from you is that churches respond well to emergencies. That's certainly well and good.

I think we were talking about non-emergency situations, like the homeless on the street. We were discussing the idea that conservatives care more for those homeless than the liberals do.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If I'm ignorant, that's fine. I'm certainly ignorant of a lot of things, so I don't take it as an insult. Educate me. Show me where the money goes.

Here's another....

http://www.providentliving.org/famil...2873-1,00.html

LDS Family Services has all kinds of stuff listed that they do on behalf of others. This is the church Mitt Romney belongs to....

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think what I'm hearing from you is that churches respond well to emergencies. That's certainly well and good.

I think we were talking about non-emergency situations, like the homeless on the street. We were discussing the idea that conservatives care more for those homeless than the liberals do.

Again, the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities and many other groups are right there as the first line of help for the homeless. Both of those charities have homeless housing and programs and both work closely with Psychiatric health services in that population. You probably have no idea how bad things would be without these "faith based group" efforts.

why do you think GW Bush was so big into pushing for greater funding for "Faith based groups?" The asnwer is because they are very effective at helping people in real ways. They are generally more effective than government programs...

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think what I'm hearing from you is that churches respond well to emergencies. That's certainly well and good.

I think we were talking about non-emergency situations, like the homeless on the street. We were discussing the idea that conservatives care more for those homeless than the liberals do.

That was just my first reaction to your post. Read my other posts, where I provided links. Check out those web sites and do some research. This information isn't very hard to find.

[Mavdog]

first, as it relates to the homeless and the phrase "get a job", the vast majority of homeless suffer fron mental illness, not a case of laziness. their capablility to get and hold a job is pretty much nonexistent.

second, as for the role of churches in determining the level of donations in the study....read the article. when the contributions to churches are removed it's about even between liberals and conservatives.

last, the discussion of if a church is a charity. a charity is an organization whose reason for existence is directing funds and effort toward helping affected people. imo churches do not come close to reaching this definition, as their first priority is their congregants, and many churches are nowhere close to providing 1/3 of their budgets towards affected people, which is a common definition of a well run charity.

the fact that some churches may provide charitable endeavors doesn't itself qualify them as a charitable organization. the firm that I work at gives support to 3 different organizations helping ill kids and women's shelters thru either money or labor....thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours. does that mean the firm is a charity? nowhere close.

not to even mention how some churches (benny hinn, kenneth copeland) shouldn't be allowed to even be tax exempt, they're nothing but religious businesses...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Here's another...

http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf

hover your mouse of "Programs That Help"

Yeah. Programs that help other fundie Christians--or those we hope we can convert. That's not charity, bro. That's an investment.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first, as it relates to the homeless and the phrase "get a job", the vast majority of homeless suffer fron mental illness, not a case of laziness. their capablility to get and hold a job is pretty much nonexistent.

second, as for the role of churches in determining the level of donations in the study....read the article. when the contributions to churches are removed it's about even between liberals and conservatives.

last, the discussion of if a church is a charity. a charity is an organization whose reason for existence is directing funds and effort toward helping affected people. imo churches do not come close to reaching this definition, as their first priority is their congregants, and many churches are nowhere close to providing 1/3 of their budgets towards affected people, which is a common definition of a well run charity.

the fact that some churches may provide charitable endeavors doesn't itself qualify them as a charitable organization. the firm that I work at gives support to 3 different organizations helping ill kids and women's shelters thru either money or labor....thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours. does that mean the firm is a charity? nowhere close.

not to even mention how some churches (benny hinn, kenneth copeland) shouldn't be allowed to even be tax exempt, they're nothing but religious businesses...

The IRS code defines charities. You can look there for a definition if you wish. Many churches split off their charitable branches/efforts with different names to meet the legal code issues. Many churches do have some aspects of their functionality taxed. You are over simplifying the issue.

The reason the Catholic Church created the entity "Catholic Charities" is probably exactly for the issue of dealing with the IRS code.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yeah. Programs that help other fundie Christians--or those we hope we can convert. That's not charity, bro. That's an investment.

Since you chose to make those comments in response to the Salvation Army link, are you trying to say those bell ringers at Wal Mart are there only in hopes of converting us all to their religion, so we can go ring bells too?

Sure, most churches hope to convert others, but that should not be presumed to be their only motivation when it comes to charity. If you're going to second guess the Salvation Army, who's slogan is Doing The Most Good, then what are you going to say the United Way's under-handed motive is?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Since you chose to make those comments in response to the Salvation Army link, are you trying to say those bell ringers at Wal Mart are there only in hopes of converting us all to their religion, so we can go ring bells too?

Sure, most churches hope to convert others, but that should not be presumed to be their only motivation when it comes to charity. If you're going to second guess the Salvation Army, who's slogan is Doing The Most Good, then what are you going to say the United Way's under-handed motive is?

I used to give those guys some change, but now that I have learned they are a religious organization, they won't be seeing any more money from me. I believe in helping my fellow man, not helping my resident wacko church and its churchgoers.

[dude1394]

So many church "hatas" on the left. Sad really.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I used to give those guys some change, but now that I have learned they are a religious organization, they won't be seeing any more money from me. I believe in helping my fellow man, not helping my resident wacko church and its churchgoers.

Exactly.

Democrats: Church is shit and only wackos attend church and donate their money there. The money so donated is used to make ministers rich and for backhanded processes like recruiting more wackos.

I wish Obama had explained the Dem position on this so well. see post #19 again

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The IRS code defines charities. You can look there for a definition if you wish. Many churches split off their charitable branches/efforts with different names to meet the legal code issues. Many churches do have some aspects of their functionality taxed. You are over simplifying the issue.

The reason the Catholic Church created the entity "Catholic Charities" is probably exactly for the issue of dealing with the IRS code.

are you referring to 501(c)? not relative.

churches don't need to register with the irs, they are exempt already.

your presumption on catholic charties is pretty flimsy to say the least.

churches only pay tax on an activity totally removed from their normal conduct, for instance if they own income producing property leased by an unrelatted for profit entity.

very, very few churches pay any taxes, be that income or property.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I used to give those guys some change, but now that I have learned they are a religious organization, they won't be seeing any more money from me. I believe in helping my fellow man, not helping my resident wacko church and its churchgoers.

The United Way a religious organization? Perhaps, I really don't know. I stopped supporting them when they withdrew support to the Boy Scouts. Had nothing to do with religion.

But your comments here are very telling. You don't want to designate churches as charities, because you're anti-church. It really has nothing to do at all with the charitable work they do. If they are religious, f@#$ em.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Since you chose to make those comments in response to the Salvation Army link, are you trying to say those bell ringers at Wal Mart are there only in hopes of converting us all to their religion, so we can go ring bells too?

why do you refer to the salvation army as a "church"? they don't.