cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.Yet we still have time to cling to Bibles and money to buy 365 Gazillion Guns.
Top that liberals!
Posted on 12/21/2008 5:52:27 AM PST by Amelia
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Its the Wellstone Syndrome
There was a brief flurry of news about this when Arthur Brooks’ book came out a couple years ago. Liberals don’t like to be reminded.
Because all liberals require of themselves is the FEELINGS. Doesn’t matter if actions follow, they FEEL ‘correctly.’ And there is no self-discipline or real thinking of others, which is what truly giving of yourself requires. Then they can assuage their guilt by voting for idiots.
Yes. He's been pretty good at "spreading the wealth" himself.
Great idea! The comments on the site are quite interesting, and the liberals who are commenting are rather outraged by the article on the whole, it seems.
Some liberals are seeing the light. They want to find ways to deny it, but they are becoming convinced that conservatives do not hate the poor at all.
We must all work on this perception.
So, liberals are more likely to be secular, and it's seculars who don't give as much. Makes sense.
yes be respectful but point how typical this is of liberal hypocrisy. Other historical examples to use: Anti-gun celebrities (Rosie) opposing the right to own a gun and then hiring armed body guards because they feel threatened ( I guess poor or middle class people who are threatened are SOL because they can't afford to hire an armed guard)or back in the 70s the pro-busing crowd who would turn arount to their kids to private, predominately white schools.
The issue Kristof points out is much bigger than who gives more to charity. Let's take a page out of the libs handbook. Don't limit your response to just the contents of Kiristofs article! Use is a platform to point out how inhertitantly hypocritical you have to be to be a liberal these days. Be respectful to the rules of civilized discourse but don't show respect to liberals in general because they don't dererve it. And oh yes, name names and give examples.
I'll see you there. This should be fun!
That’s what I saw in the articles when the Obama’s finally made some contributions, after a number of commentators had noticed how stingy they were. Something like $35,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
No new comments posted since 9:50 — everything since is apparently waiting to be approved.
Should be interesting to see what pops up when he gets back to it...
They give other peoples money to make themselves feel better. Just look at the charity giving of Ohbummer, Biden, Gore, Clinton, etc. They are all skinflints.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I’m shocked, I tell ya!
Yes, the libs won't like what some of us have posted, will they? Still, unless we use profanity, the paper will eventually publish our comments. Oh, wait--I forgot it's the Bush-Bashing rag, the one soon to go belly-up unless the pretender president-elect bails it out. I'll be crying if that happens.Regards . . . Penny
Any study today about charitable giving is meaningless without factoring in the cynical vanities of the liberal foundations. The Gates, Buffett--how real are their charities? Any hungrey get fed, any souls ministered to, any sick get healed?
Barry raps to the crowd: “You down with O.P.P.?”
DimoLib crowd in unison: “Yeah you know me!”
Thanks for the article! Tithing (and then some) is probably more understood, let alone more supported, by conservatives.
cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.Yet we still have time to cling to Bibles and money to buy 365 Gazillion Guns.
Top that liberals!
I posted but read the comments. They are all a personal discussion of Kristol. No substance, its like they didn’t even read the article. What shallow twits.
If you read between the lines, you can see how so many liberals simply cannot believe this "truth" that flies in the face of everything they have been told about conservatives over the years.
This is an opportunity to cast doubt in their hearts and minds.
Liberals are more likely to give to environmental (Greenpeace) and animal (PETA) charities. They are far less likely to give to the local food shelf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.