Conservatives Are More Generous Than Liberals

Quote:

Who Gives to Charity?
By John Stossel

Nice, non-partisan guy there. Right.

Even more so, his points aren't as telling because they don't examine the different ways in which people choose to handle charity/support for those who need it.

California as a whole, and San Fran in particular, have some of the most progressive and best programs for helping out the poor and homeless in the nation. Homeless people don't starve here, they have a place to stay, they don't get hassled by the cops or the citizens to any great extent.

But we don't give a lot to bums on the street. Why? Becuase we have decided to collectively pool our tax monies to provide the things they need to exist: food, water, shelter.

Yet, for some reason, those on the Right seem to believe that the actual act of handing money to someone/a charity is in some way more significant than voting to give money to those who need it, or is indicative of a better, more giving personality. And that's complete bullsh*t.

Threads like this just remind me more and more that my sig line is absolutely true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Stoessel's "study" is so flawed, it's laughable. Stand in line a the Safeway, Diamond Heights, an affluent area of San Francisco, and you will notice that 90% of the people are paying with plastic, so one doesn't have the cash to drop in the bucket and the cash one does have is usually "yuppie food stamps" twenties doled out by the ATM. I don't think most people are inclined to drop a twenty in the bucket.

One will also notice that half the people leaving the store are talking on their cell phone and won't even notice the food bucket dude. OTOH if you have a petitiion to sign, San Franciscans will actually take the time to read and sign the petition if they agree with it.

I would suggest that fundraisers try a different tact to solicit donations in this city.

This claim that religious zealots give more than liberals is complete and utter bullshit.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Stoessel's "study" is so flawed, it's laughable. Stand in line a the Safeway, Diamond Heights, an affluent area of San Francisco, and you will notice that 90% of the people are paying with plastic, so one doesn't have the cash to drop in the bucket and the cash one does have is usually "yuppie food stamps" twenties doled out by the ATM. I don't think most people are inclined to drop a twenty in the bucket.

One will also notice that half the people leaving the store are talking on their cell phone and won't even notice the food bucket dude. OTOH if you have a petitiion to sign, San Franciscans will actually take the time to read and sign the petition if they agree with it.

I would suggest that fundraisers try a different tact to solicit donations in this city.

This claim that religious zealots give more than liberals is complete and utter bullshit.

So, if I understand correctly what you are saying, the S.F. leftists are too busy talking on their cell phones to be bothered to give to the Salvation ARmy, or if they are paying attention to the bell-ringers they aren't going to part with their money because they never carry loose change, but if you ask them to sign a petition (and how much does that cost them?) they will jump at the opportunity (and presumably would get off the phone in order to do it). And you think all of that is supportive of your claim that liberals give more than the religious.

Is that what you're saying?

0 Replies

No

0 Replies

Billionires rip off the public by the billions and thru philantrophy give back millions. The intake is 1,000 while the give back is 1.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Stoessel's "study" is so flawed, it's laughable. Stand in line a the Safeway, Diamond Heights, an affluent area of San Francisco, and you will notice that 90% of the people are paying with plastic, so one doesn't have the cash to drop in the bucket and the cash one does have is usually "yuppie food stamps" twenties doled out by the ATM. I don't think most people are inclined to drop a twenty in the bucket.

One will also notice that half the people leaving the store are talking on their cell phone and won't even notice the food bucket dude. OTOH if you have a petitiion to sign, San Franciscans will actually take the time to read and sign the petition if they agree with it.

I would suggest that fundraisers try a different tact to solicit donations in this city.

This claim that religious zealots give more than liberals is complete and utter bullshit.

So, if I understand correctly what you are saying, the S.F. leftists are too busy talking on their cell phones to be bothered to give to the Salvation ARmy, or if they are paying attention to the bell-ringers they aren't going to part with their money because they never carry loose change, but if you ask them to sign a petition (and how much does that cost them?) they will jump at the opportunity (and presumably would get off the phone in order to do it). And you think all of that is supportive of your claim that liberals give more than the religious.

Is that what you're saying?

That is what I understood. We all know that SF is a liberial bastion.

0 Replies

I believe that conservatives are more generous. They're always trying to give everybody things. Like for instance, advice on how to live their lives, and what they should or shouldn't do with their own bodies...and what about Iraq? They gave Iraq freedom and liberty. Now that is generosity.

0 Replies

Now don't sell your side short, Kicky ... liberals have that whole "entitlement" thing going for them. They are real generous with other people's money.

0 Replies

Ah, true. I guess this is a win-win situation for everyone then.

0 Replies

Conservatives are more generous in their inability to observe reality.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wasn't aware that the guy was making a political point.

Oh? Then why the title the thread as you did?

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I wasn't aware that the guy was making a political point.

Oh? Then why the title the thread as you did?

Because that is the context he uses in his analysis. You equate conservative and liberal with only politics? You don't see these designations as also applying to religion, socioeconomic considerations, art, sciences, etc. etc. etc?

I didn't need to put this thread in the politics forum of course, but since Republicans and Democrats are also referenced, I figured this would be the forum where it would get the most attention.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Conservatives are more generous in their inability to observe reality.

A conservative makes a scientific observation and gets blasted for it. The people who support his observation also get blasted and those that disagree with all of it want more proof that the guy who made the scientific observation is able to make such an observation.

Did I get all of that right?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Conservatives are more generous in their inability to observe reality.

A conservative makes a scientific observation and gets blasted for it. The people who support his observation also get blasted and those that disagree with all of it want more proof that the guy who made the scientific observation is able to make such an observation.

Did I get all of that right?

If you cable guys are so smart how come you can't ever get a service call right the first time? Razz

0 Replies

The author's point ssems to be that a liberal who supports (and is willing to pay taxes for) social programs is less charitable than a conservative who is against such taxation but who writes a check instead. Do I have this right?

0 Replies

You have it right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The contention that this is a scientific survey is unwarranted. Unless and until someone provides the methodological description (and not some intentionally devious link to a general statement, such as McG provided) there is no reason to assume that there is anything scientific about Mr. Brooks' claims.

What organizations did Mr. Brooks' include as being organizations to which donations constitute charity? Does he include organizations such as the NRA Foundation? If so, did he exclude gun control foundations? How does he define who is conservative and who is liberal, and how does he determine that any given donors, and all of the donor in the aggregate, to any given charitable organization are either conservative or liberal by his defintions?

This is so completely a vague and nebulous claim as to be absurd on the face of it. I'm not surprised that the usual suspects are hot to defend it, though.

0 Replies

Dartgen wrote: The author's point seems to be that a liberal who supports (and is willing to pay taxes for) social programs is less charitable than a conservative who is against such taxation but who writes a check instead. Do I have this right?

And Set wrote: The contention that this is a scientific survey is unwarranted.

These two posts tells me all I need to know about the "conservative" mind.

0 Replies

I am perfectly willing to make a charitable donation to either the government or a private organization so they can see to it that 10 cents on the dollar actually gets to the needy after "administrative expenses" but I can't afford both. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

The author's point ssems to be that a liberal who supports (and is willing to pay taxes for) social programs is less charitable than a conservative who is against such taxation but who writes a check instead. Do I have this right?

That is one of the components to the discussion yes, and perhaps an important one because it does affect the social emphasis part of legislation. It was also in my mind when I put the poll questions up there.

But the writer's basic emphasis is that there is a component of conservatism that seems to inspire generosity from ones own resources be that cash, items of value, time, and/or blood. He certainly did not imply that there is no such thng as a generous liberal nor a stingy conservative. But overall, conservatives are more generous than liberals.

Generosity in this context I think can be defined as contributions for which there is no expectation of reciprocation.

0 Replies

Conservatives Are More Generous Than Liberals

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know