Consrva.. errrr Liberals are tight, money grubbing bas s

[101A]

Article pretty much says it all.

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy
Religion News Service

Print Page

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, led "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

His book, he says, is carefully do ented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government en lement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an at ude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government en lement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including en lements.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the do entation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

[Spurminator]

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government en lement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Sure is a lot of variables... If the study was meant to find out if Conservatives or Liberals were more generous, why narrow it down to Church-going conservatives vs. Secular Liberals? That doesn't tell us anything. Obviously Church-goers would more likely to he... I don't know for sure but I would bet hing is included under this study as a form of charity.

I'm guessing a study on the philanthropy of Liberals who practice religion and Secular Conservatives would find that the former give more. I'm not sure if it's the professor or the writer of this article making the conclusion on Liberals vs. Conservatives, but it's silly.

[ChumpDumper]

But they aren't having babies, so charitable giving is only going to go up in the future.

Great news!

[101A]

Sure is a lot of variables... If the study was meant to find out if Conservatives or Liberals were more generous, why narrow it down to Church-going conservatives vs. Secular Liberals? That doesn't tell us anything. Obviously Church-goers would more likely to he... I don't know for sure but I would bet hing is included under this study as a form of charity.

I'm guessing a study on the philanthropy of Liberals who practice religion and Secular Conservatives would find that the former give more. I'm not sure if it's the professor or the writer of this article making the conclusion on Liberals vs. Conservatives, but it's silly.

You're reaching.

The study was to find who was generous.

The MOST generous: Christian Conservatives

Don't try to spin it any other way than that, that this is irrelevent. Liberals have ALWAYS had a holier-than-thou, more caring than thou at ude. THEY are the enlightened, the most caring; you know it and I know it. Conservatives, and specifically, CHRISTIAN conservatives have been demonized pretty much ALL the time in the media since the election of '04. just look at the bias against Santorum and his views/beliefs and practices on this very board!

Also, why the shouldn't contributions to a church be considered charity, which you underhandedly seem to question?

[Spurminator]

No, I'm not reaching. The study is reaching. Otherwise they wouldn't have to have so many variables.

And I do think hing should be considered.


Hey, did you know that taking a jack-hammer to a baseball will destroy it faster than an egg left stationary on a table? Guess that means an egg is stronger than a baseball.

[Spurminator]

You're reaching.

The study was to find who was generous.

The MOST generous: Christian Conservatives

The study found that Religious Conservatives are more generous than Non-religious Liberals. A finding that can be easily explained by the fact that many Religious people give weekly to their churches, without even going into political beliefs.

It's bad logic. Insultingly bad.

[xrayzebra]

Wonder why anyone is surprised at this "study"? I am most certainly not.

Liberal are only generous with other peoples money.

Look at the Speak of the House. A multi-milionaire with grape vinyards, wineries and
a chain of restaurants and all illegals doing all the labor. Now she is assured of her
labor force since the dimm-o-craps are in charge.

Look at John Edwards, hates Wal-Mart, until he needs a PS-3 then sends a flunky
out to a Wal-Mart to invoke his name to attempt to buy one.

Nope the Libs are what they are. Stinking hypocrites.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wonder why anyone is surprised at this "study"? I am most certainly not.

Liberal are only generous with other peoples money.

Look at the Speak of the House. A multi-milionaire with grape vinyards, wineries and
a chain of restaurants and all illegals doing all the labor. Now she is assured of her
labor force since the dimm-o-craps are in charge.

Look at John Edwards, hates Wal-Mart, until he needs a PS-3 then sends a flunky
out to a Wal-Mart to invoke his name to attempt to buy one.

Nope the Libs are what they are. Stinking hypocrites.

Ray why are you so angry man?


WHen you say liberals do you mean 100% of all libs? So then I would guess you know all of us to make such a broad and general statement correct?

[Spurminator]

I'd love to see a real study done on this matter. But this one ain't it.

[101A]

I'd love to see a real study done on this matter. But this one ain't it.

You've read the book?

[Spurminator]

Nope, I'm just going based on the Religion News Service summary you posted.

Have you read it?

[101A]

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood..

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Spurminator, well played. You took one quote out of the piece, and then used that to try to spin that the entire piece just refers to "Religous Conservatives" and "Secular Liberals". Then you state, "Too many variables for the study to be meaningfull".

Well, there are two quotes without variables; just "liberal" and "conservative".

And this is just one review of a book neither of us has seen, so until we do, I will simply go by the author of the piece and the quotes from the author of the book in this short article. They each say in this "Conservatives are more generous than liberals." More to come when the book comes out, no doubt.

[101A]

Nope, I'm just going based on the Religion News Service summary you posted.

Have you read it?

Trying to discredit the article by mentioning where it was posted? It's linked off of Drudge, and the author, as the piece states, contributes to the WSJ. Again, we'll just have to read the book.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

You know, I've gained a slight respect for Xray and 101A.

They stayed around unlike that son-of-a- Yonivore and the sexually frustrated Roadrunner Murphy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Spurminator, well played. You took one quote out of the piece, and then used that to try to spin that the entire piece just refers to "Religous Conservatives" and "Secular Liberals". Then you state, "Too many variables for the study to be meaningfull".

Well, there are two quotes without variables; just "liberal" and "conservative".

And this is just one review of a book neither of us has seen, so until we do, I will simply go by the author of the piece and the quotes from the author of the book in this short article. They each say in this "Conservatives are more generous than liberals." More to come when the book comes out, no doubt.

well then I guess it wpuld be fair to state that all conservatives are mean spirited and don't care for the poor or their children. we can base this on their continual assault on social programs for the poor..such as free lunches for poor kids.. all conservatives are greedy heartless folks...

wow I was able to label every conservative alive..

[Spurminator]

Well, there are two quotes without variables; just "liberal" and "conservative".

Sure. Maybe he didn't want to repeat "conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution" and "secular liberals who believe fervently in government en lement programs" every time he brought up the issue.

The piece of the article I quoted offers this as "The Book's Basic Findings." Maybe it's just a poorly written article.

[101A]

well then I guess it wpuld be fair to state that all conservatives are mean spirited and don't care for the poor or their children. we can base this on their continual assault on social programs for the poor..such as free lunches for poor kids.. all conservatives are greedy heartless folks...

wow I was able to label every conservative alive..

There you go again....

Just because we don't support another failed government program that spends a billion dollars to net a million dollars benefit doesn't make us heartless, it makes us realists. That maybe, just maybe, conservatives actually put their money where their mouths are. That if you let THEM kee more of their money, it would do more good through charities.

The fact that liberals DO support programs that don't work, and as a group are not generous in giving to charities could, as a whole, prove themselves to be functionally heartless - doing nothing to actually better any persons condition.

[101A]

Maybe it's just a poorly written article.

On this we agree.

[George Gervin's Afro]

There you go again....

Just because we don't support another failed government program that spends a billion dollars to net a million dollars benefit doesn't make us heartless, it makes us realists. That maybe, just maybe, conservatives actually put their money where their mouths are. That if you let THEM kee more of their money, it would do more good through charities.

The fact that liberals DO support programs that don't work, and as a group are not generous in giving to charities could, as a whole, prove themselves to be functionally heartless - doing nothing to actually better any persons condition.

So giving free lunches to poor kids is a failed program? Letting kids starve is a good thing? SUpport for these types of programs makes me hearltess? That's really a stretch don't you think?

[xrayzebra]

Ray why are you so angry man?


WHen you say liberals do you mean 100% of all libs? So then I would guess you know all of us to make such a broad and general statement correct?

I am not angry, Man! I know liberals. I have seen them all my life. I
have seen them operate. And yes I mean all of them. They remind me
of some of my days as a youngster in the Baptist church. The most holy
among the congregation were some of the biggest sinners. The ones
that really worship did so in a quite, dignified way. They didn't need
to advertise nor have to be ask to give. They did so from the bottom
of their heart. The others, like the Libs, have to be praised and
tell everyone how great they are. Yeah, Man, I meant all Liberals.

[101A]

So giving free lunches to poor kids is a failed program? Letting kids starve is a good thing? SUpport for these types of programs makes me hearltess? That's really a stretch don't you think?

Functionally heartless; if you are taking money to give to the poor which could be spent more efficiently, and do more good, in other ways - feed more kids, or make some not poor anymore.

Do you support these programs because you know they are ACTUALLY feeding poor kids, or because they SAY they are feeding poor kids? How much money do we spend collectively on each lunch? How much is too much? Unfortunately, whenever a conseravative asks those kinds of questions, they ARE labeled heartless ans worse.

Did I ever say letting kids starve is a good thing?

[Spurminator]

Well, you might make the same argument about giving to a church that puts its money towards its pastor's three lake houses and 100 foot tall steeple.

[PixelPusher]

from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic...

This describes a lot of Democrats who live in this country.

[101A]

Well, you might make the same argument about giving to a church that puts its money towards its pastor's three lake houses and 100 foot tall steeple.

...and I would.

Hagee Sucks.

See.

Parishoners should go to the budget meetings of their churches, and see where the money is going. They should question and examine. Otherwise, they are not doing there duty. All of the books must be open, so that the churches can keep there tax-exempt status. Citizens should do the same with their government.

[101A]

This describes a lot of Democrats who live in this country.

Democrat != Liberal
Conservative != Republican

However, more people who go to church call themselves "conservative" than call themselves "liberal". It's a crisis, remember; the whole Red State/Blue State issue? Mind numbed robot evangelists and all that?