|
|
|
11-18-2006, 01:50 AM
|
#1 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Land of the free, home of the brave
|
Cheap in America: Who Gives? Who Doesn't?
Quote:
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, titled "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 documented 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 entitlement 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 attitude, 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 entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.
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 documentation 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."
|
this article will be discredited in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1...
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 03:24 AM
|
#2 |
|
Thanks for all the fish.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
|
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 03:47 AM
|
#3 |
|
It happens all the time
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Solon, Iowa
|
yay for generalizations!
__________________

LOLZ IM HRDCORER THAN BEan!!!
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 09:09 AM
|
#4 |
|
Meow =^_^=
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
|
So, religious people tend to donate most than other people? I'm not exactly surprised.
__________________
"I have captured the enemy for meat testing! Praise me! PRAISE ME!!!" -GIR
Wi-Fi ID: 1627 8934 4983 8539
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 12:53 PM
|
#5 |
|
Porcupo
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: That magical little piece of hell on earth: Bay Shore NY
Posts: 355

|
i dont think anyone cares
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pithy
In Soviet Union, genitals light themselves on fire.
|
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 01:09 PM
|
#6 |
|
Like the Groundhog Phil.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Punxsutawney, PA
|
I don't want to knock the study because I think it's definitely true, and the responses to this thread by liberals will almost surely bear that out. My concern is that charity includes tithe/offering giving at church. It's not exactly all that noble to give to the offering at church when you're socially pressured/shamed into donating money.
__________________
What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 01:22 PM
|
#7 |
|
Sabor de Soledad
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NM
|
Yeah I would like to know the motivations for giving and how that plays into the equation. I just wish more people were giving, period.
__________________
I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 01:53 PM
|
#9 |
|
Like the Groundhog Phil.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Punxsutawney, PA
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xavius
Yeah I would like to know the motivations for giving and how that plays into the equation. I just wish more people were giving, period.
|
I think the flip side is that church's are generally geared towards participating in charitable causes. It's part of the culture. So while the giving of tithes/offerings might seem socially pressured, church's do plenty of other things that are exclusively voluntary. Food drives, work at homeless shelters, selling various things for charitable causes, etc., etc.
So I don't have any doubt that Christians are more charitable. My concern is just how much more charitable they actually are. There are plenty of secular organizations that engage in charity. They just don't have near the attendance draw that a church/religion does unless they're stupid (like abortion groups).
__________________
What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 02:02 PM
|
#10 |
|
Sabor de Soledad
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NM
|
True, how much more charitable is an interesting question, but I would like this to eventually become a contest between the godless heathens and the spaghetti monster sheep as to who can make the world a better place!
__________________
I was young and confused and your mom didn't want me around no more. Now pass me dem damn collard greens!
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 04:51 PM
|
#12 |
|
FryGuy
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: michigan
|
I donate to the church of satan, does that count?
__________________
Strange days indeed.
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 04:57 PM
|
#13 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Land of the free, home of the brave
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Advance
I think the flip side is that church's are generally geared towards participating in charitable causes. It's part of the culture. So while the giving of tithes/offerings might seem socially pressured, church's do plenty of other things that are exclusively voluntary. Food drives, work at homeless shelters, selling various things for charitable causes, etc., etc.
So I don't have any doubt that Christians are more charitable. My concern is just how much more charitable they actually are. There are plenty of secular organizations that engage in charity. They just don't have near the attendance draw that a church/religion does unless they're stupid (like abortion groups).
|
the basic idea of this is that liberals see it as the governments job to feed, cloth, house people, etc. raising taxes and redistribution of wealth is their version of charity. we have seen that argued here on these boards countless times, conservatives are always demonized when they speak out against high tax rates and social programs.
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 07:29 PM
|
#14 |
|
Jeffersonian
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Coast
|
I think Bill Gates/Warren Buffet is still several billion dollars above y'all, Snuggles...
__________________
"Because most people think, "Life sucks, and then you die." I disagree. I think life sucks, then you get cancer. Then you go into chemotherapy. You lose all your hair, you feel bad about yourself. Then all of the sudden the cancer goes into remission. You look good you feel good, you're going great, and all of the sudden you have a stroke. You can't move your right side. And one day you step off the curb at 68th by Lincoln Center and bang, you get hit by a bus. And then, maybe, you die."
"I do not advocate drug use. I advocate education and proper science"

|
|
|
11-18-2006, 07:56 PM
|
#15 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Land of the free, home of the brave
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Drunken Savior
I think Bill Gates/Warren Buffet is still several billion dollars above y'all, Snuggles...
|
here is some more info on this: http://newsbusters.org/node/9156
sure, gates and buffet have donated lots of money, but you cant argue the facts. the guy that did this study and wrote this book isnt a christian or a conservative.
i dont know why the libs here try arguing against this. arent social programs and government mandated redistribution of wealth better and more righteous that giving to a charity?
|
|
|
11-18-2006, 09:12 PM
|
#16 |
|
Meow =^_^=
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSnuggles
the basic idea of this is that liberals see it as the governments job to feed, cloth, house people, etc. raising taxes and redistribution of wealth is their version of charity. we have seen that argued here on these boards countless times, conservatives are always demonized when they speak out against high tax rates and social programs.
|
I wouldn't say it's the government's job is to give out charity. I'd say it's maintaining the well-being of its citizens.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSnuggles
i dont know why the libs here try arguing against this. arent social programs and government mandated redistribution of wealth better and more righteous that giving to a charity?
|
Why would they be?
__________________
"I have captured the enemy for meat testing! Praise me! PRAISE ME!!!" -GIR
Wi-Fi ID: 1627 8934 4983 8539
Last edited by Caster13 : 11-18-2006 at 09:39 PM.
|
|
|
11-19-2006, 08:44 AM
|
#17 |
|
was..and always will be
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Londinium
|
Christians are only doing it so they can get into heaven. Its a completely selfish act.
Sure, it is useful, and i have nothing but support for people who want to give to charity. But ill laugh at any self-righeous hypocrite christian who wants some recognition for his 'good deed', which flies in the face of a specific bible teaching, and is itself a complete joke, as the only christian motivation comes from a desire to get pleasure and avoid pain, motivated purely by self interest, which is why religious ideas are such sucessful memes.
__________________
I'm not afraid of dying.....pieces of me die all the time.
________________________________
 "LOL Sony!"
Im tired of lolling at sony. Its beginning to feel like laughing at a retarded kid - post that got me my 1000th cookie
|
|
|
11-19-2006, 10:25 PM
|
#18 |
|
Free Government Money!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SoCal
|
What kinds of Charity?
Things that send bibles to Africans?
Good use...
My GF (who is very Chrisitan) and I give lots of money to anyone we see, people on road,people at gas stations...and yes its not on my taxes so how does anyone know?
__________________
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools".
- Douglas Adams -
|
|
|
11-20-2006, 08:41 AM
|
#19 |
|
no, not that one.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSnuggles
this article will be discredited in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1...
|
If it's so easily discredited, why post it?
A couple of things..
1) Can you come back and post some actual facts? Some data? Right now we don't know anything about it.
2) How did this study treat religious liberals? Are they included in either group?
3) Were donations to the church included?
|
|
|
11-29-2006, 10:10 PM
|
#20 |
|
Like the Groundhog Phil.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Punxsutawney, PA
|
I'm watching this guy on 20/20 right now.
Apparently religious people don't just donate to church--they're more likely to donate in every facet of charitable giving: they give more blood, give more to purely secular charities, give more to the homeless, and give more overall (four times more than non-religious people, in fact). The single biggest predictor of charitable giving is religious participation.
Also interesting, the working poor gives the greatest percentage of its wealth to charity--nearly a third. The non-working poor (i.e. welfare queens), give almost nothing. The rich give almost nothing as a comparison of their wealth. The middle class give comparatively less than the working poor. The upper-middle class (incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, as far as I could tell on the graph they showed), give the next most behind the working poor.
__________________
What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Rate This Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.
|
|