Who gives to charity?

"And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

That's a good bit of info to know... and consider.

Did they compare the cost of living and real estate/rent in San Francisco?
It is the highest in the country. I know single people who live in San Fran and work as engineers, architechs and doctors just starting out, and they eek by
despite the fact that they have what seem like large salaries. Did they check
the political affiliation of the people who didn't give, or their average income, or
religious affiliation?

It is illegal for homeless people to ask you for money in S.F. That might seem
extreme, but you have to consider that during the '60s S.F. became homeless
central... people moved there to be homeless.

I will agree that the people with less to give are the most generous, because
they have something lacking in a lot of successful people in America: empathy.
I will agree that religious people are often very generous, it is part of what
they're taught and one of the things I like about some organized religions.

WIll I agree with the article's assumption that both groups above are all made
up of "conservatives," which I guess means conservative republicans? No,
I see otherwise on a daily basis in a very Red state.

I like John Stousel sometimes, but this is one of his little stories that's lean on
fact and big on assumption.

I don't know to all three of your questions.

Another article about charity. Good read.

Townhall.com::Charitable nation::By Jonah Goldberg

Americans are better people than Europeans. Hold on, it gets better. Religious Americans are better than non-religious Americans. And religious Americans tend to be politically conservative.

This admittedly tendentious rendering of reality is how some on the right are interpreting "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. Brooks doesn't really deal with what makes one person "better" or "worse" than any other. But it's fair to say that how much a person gives - of either his money or time - is usually considered an important indicator of character. It turns out that by this yardstick alone, my little talk-radio-ready summary is basically correct.

The further to the left you are - particularly to the secular left - the less likely you are to donate your time or money to charity. Imagine two demographically identical people, except that Joe goes to church regularly and rejects the idea that the government should redistribute wealth to lessen inequality, while Sam never goes to church and favors state-driven income redistribution. Brooks says the data indicate that not only is Joe Churchgoer nearly twice as likely as Sam Secularist to give money to charities in a given year, he will also give 100 times more money per year to charities (and 50 times more to non-religious ones).

Because Brooks is using vast pools of data, and because he's talking about averages rather than individuals, there is no end of exceptions to prove the rule. No doubt there are pious Scrooges and Santa-like atheists. But, basically, if you are religiously observant, a married parent and skeptical toward the role of government, you are much more likely to be generous with your time and money.

Townhall.com::The Real Skinflints::By Chuck Colson

Are conservatives and Christians becoming too narrow and selfish? Are we hypocritical skinflints, indifferent to the suffering of the needy?

The liberals say so. But is it true? Do conservatives and Christians really love their money more than they do the poor?

A new book by an expert on charity says: absolutely not. The real skinflints, he writes, are secular liberals.

Arthur Brooks, professor at Syracuse University, writes in his new book, titled Who Really Cares, that he grew up in a liberal home and accepted one of the liberal political nostrums: that the political left “is compassionate and charitable toward the less fortunate, but the political right is oblivious to suffering.”

“If you had asked me a few years ago to sum up the character of American conservatives,” he writes, “I would have said they were hard-headed pragmatists who were willing to throw your grandmother out into the snow to preserve some weird ideal of self-reliance.”

all of this is based on "polls," and very unscientific means of conclusion at that.

Also, does Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the like qualify as charity?

You can't dismiss poll-based statements when you want and laud them other times.

Would those polls be like the ones they use to see war popularity? Seems you like a certain conclusion with one thing but not with the other?

If it's tax deductible, i would say it's charity in some circles.

I think you just proved my point. So why can you talk against polls in this thread and go with it in another?