Conservatives give more to charity than liberals

With all the Republican/conservative/tea party fear mongering going on, I thought I'd inject a bit of reality in to the debate. The fact is, people on the so called "right wing", give a lot more to the poor than liberals.

According to Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University who published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism:

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

-- 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.

So the next time you hear our Democrat party media or their willing accomplices on the internet demonize Republicans over supposedly not caring about the poor, show them this factual information. The truth of the matter is, people on the right don't trust the government to spend their money. It has nothing to do with a hatred for the poor.

reply to post by Gannicus


These stats have been circulated quite a bit around ATS. It seems liberals must have the government take their money and redistribute it because they would have no motivation to help the poor people they pretend to care so much about if left to their own device.

the only time the democrats consider it to be charity is when

a gun is being held to their heads and he give everything you have to someone else.

that sums it up....

the old entitlement to charity debate one is actually goodness and the other is pure evil.

on the sad note no matter how many times people tell those fact it time and time again falls on deaf ears.

No, I see it as the other way around. When you know your tax dollars are going to this or that charitible cause, you don't give extra money out of your pocket.

Think on a smaller scale: most places that serve food to a large group (usually 8 or more) automatically add a -15%-18% gratuity for the servers. I can't tell you how many times I've heard: "If I wasn't forced to give 18% for that, I would have easily tipped twice that ammount for the service...but since they MADE me pay it, I'm not giving them a penny more."

It is far easier to see the need to aid people when they are right there in front of you, asking for help...and thereby, far harder to say no. Getting people into situations where they do not ever have to be confronted with those in need keeps them isolated, and less likely to be charitable.

While I think there may be something to both sides of the stories, it has been shown that 86.5% of statistics are made up.


Although I would be curious about the percentage of those "conservatives" who were berated into "giving to the poor" every sunday....

Whoa, at first glance I thought that you had beaten me to the punch on a similar thread that I will be posting soon, Thankfuly you decided to take it in another dirrection, otherwise I would have just wasted my evening. lol.

I don't really know how accurate those stats are but from my personal experience they seem on target. There is a difference between being responsible financially and waving the banner of conservatism to justify being a deadbeat. A person, who acts in a conservative manner, is probably more likely to help another because it helps them when society is productive. A handout, on the other hand, contradicts their values because not only is it a futile act of compassion, it prolongs the negative impact on society.

In response to the comment about gratuity fees at restaurants, it leaves the same bad taste as when you want to give someone a rolex but come home from the dealer to catch them stealing your timex... Suddenly you don't really feel so generous.

My personal opinion, the Republicans give to charity so they can wright it off on taxes.
With the lax rules of verifying donations I'd bet that less than 1/2 of donations claimed are actually legitimate.

reply to post by neo96

the only time the democrats consider it to be charity is when

a gun is being held to their heads and he give everything you have to someone else. ...

Darn, you beat me to it, Neo.

The Liberal definition of "Charity" is using YOUR money to buy votes for THEIR party.

Just like "Animal Rights" has nothing to do with the welfare of animals. Liberal "Charity" has nothing to do with actually helping people.

In both cases the actual goal is POWER and CONTROL of the populus.

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


And the Red states have overcame that reaction to give more, %-wise. Was only foucusing on the "if it in't broke, don't pay to replace it," mentality.

-------------------------

And friend of mine and I are discussing it on facebook:

Me:
This did not surprise me, but I am surprised that someone wrote a book with this information.
Him:
I'd read that before, and I wondered how much of that was counted out as tithes and offering, and how much was actual soup-kitchen charity.
Me:
Most church donations would not be counted unless they run an obvious charity--and if it's counted 1 way in the south, it's going to be counted the same way in the north. Our Church is registered Non-profit, and I know that other than whomever visits our congregation and possibly those who handle bank records would know how much money we get from collections--the IRS has no business digging into what we have, and if we're not seeking public donations, then there's no reason to think the data-collectors would get a hold of it.

I'm quite sure it could be broken down into which charities got the money, and I know there's watchdog groups that report which charities actually use what percentage of their "income" towards their cause...so while this data wouldn't likely be all in 1 place, it's researchable, and can be crossreferenced.

But there's no way that blood is donated to a church, so if that was even, but money donations were higher in the south, there'd be something to that question.
Him:
Fair enough. I was wondering if this came about through actual 'go-out-of-your-way' donations or because of something most of them did anyway. Either way doesn't matter, as long as it's helping somebody, but it's a curiosity of mine.

Me:
Well, it's kind of like the thought of: if you don't want to die in a barfight, don't hang out in bars.

If you're in the habit of giving, and you assume that you are going to give because it is what you should be doing, when the time comes to go out of your way, you're going to g that extra mile. Going the extra mile almost NEVER happens ONLY on whim. You've got to condition yourself for it, just like everything else in life.

I can tell you point blank that since it is habit to donate my time and money to a small congregation, when it came time to sandbag in Gibson (WAY out my way) because of the potential floodwaters this past summer, I went and shoveled sand into bags all 1 Sunday, and kept track of the progress for the rest of the week.

Originally posted by LazyGuy
My personal opinion, the Republicans give to charity so they can wright it off on taxes.
With the lax rules of verifying donations I'd bet that less than 1/2 of donations claimed are actually legitimate.

And Democrats don't? That's a bit naieve.

Besides that's overlooking the variance in blood donations. You can't write those off as a tax deduction.

reply to post by LazyGuy

My personal opinion, the Republicans give to charity so they can wright it off on taxes.
With the lax rules of verifying donations I'd bet that less than 1/2 of donations claimed are actually legitimate.

I really doubt that since it is the LIBERALS who were in the higher income bracket according to the study.

I think the actual explanation is that conservatives are more likely to be Christians and feel it is their duty to give to charity. It is part of their up-bring and drummed into their heads in Sunday school from the time they could walk (18 yrs of getting dragged to church every Sunday)

Liberals are more apt to be non-religious and feel it is up to the STATE not them to take care of the needy.

Two completely different mind sets based on living for twenty years in Massachusetts and twenty years in Baptist country.

If I need help I rather be surrounded by Baptists then Liberals and I am an Agnostic!

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


I see where you are coming from, and i think that you set a wonderful example of compulsory chariy, so thank you for being the kind soul that you are. As far as my response to the gratuity fees, I understand where they are coming from and how it is actually a defense against the deadbeats who would leave a $10 tip on a $300 tab. This does happen and I you can probably guess my opinion on this. My analogy shows only the knee jerk reaction brought on by the surface issue, no more- no less...

I would consider myself a very giving person as well, but i do this for selfish reasons. Not for personal praise of my deeds, but because i believe that if i wish to be helped in my time of need then i must help others in theirs. call it karmac insurance, i don't care. also, i make a point to be secretive about who i help and how i help them because it takes nothing away from their dignity. I do this because when i fall on hard times and need saving, i wish for my savior to be as kind to me.

that is why i find large donations that are photographed and praised publicly to be offensive, degrading, and narsacistic. you're right there does need to be bit of conditioning of the mind when it comes to giving, because it makes sense to be generous.

Republicans give more because they feel more guilty.

They know there wouldn't be a need for so many charities if they quit sucking up to the wealthy.

Do churches count as charities?

If so, I can see why conservatives donate more than liberals. Conservatives are more likely to be church goers who give large amounts of their income to their churches. While many churches spend much of the money they get on charitable acts like feeding homeless people, much of the money that goes into church coffers goes towards things like buying ministers' vacation homes.

reply to post by LazyGuy


Liberals are guilty of abusing 501(c)(3) status as well. Greenpeace, PETA, and other organizations are tax-exempt slush funds for limousine liberals.

Yes but Greenpeace get's their own tv show to save whales. Worth every cent

reply to post by Charmed707


right on!

put your hand in your own pocket, lib,

not mine, i give enough.

The only problem I have with strictly relying on the Public to fund charities is that too often, the charities who benefit from these donations have some absurd religious or moral requirement of the people it helps in turn. If I fall on hard times, I recognize that it is not necessarily anyone's legal responsibility to help me back up. But I also recognize that if I am to be helped, it should not be at the business end of some ridiculous "say you love Jesus first" ultimatum.

reply to post by Gannicus


That is because they are rich and the money they donate is a write off.

Why not do a little chart showing the Millionaires and Billionaires on this country and show what their political affiliation is. That would be interesting. I will bet they are 99.9% Republicans. This is the party assigned to safeguard the fortunes of the rich.

Liberals and Democrats are poor working class slobs.

They do not need to hide what they make on paper so the government doesn't try to tax them on it.
If there were no tax incentive to writing these donations off as a loss you would not see it either.