Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?

Nov. 28, 2006 ? There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives?telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.


Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city ? Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more?is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.


Rich vs. Poor


The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations.

But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.

Laurie Tanner is one of those people. She says, "I remember a time when honestly, I couldn't afford a gallon of milk for my son. And I had a good friend that stepped in and helped me, and I've never forgotten that."

The United Way helped Vincent Lau when he was a teenager. Now he donates to them. "I'm glad to help, " Lau says.

Workers at the meat packing plant where Lau works make on average around $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees here than anywhere else.

Another employee at the plant, B.J. Motley, has a wife and four kids to support, but he gives part of his paycheck to charity every week

"My mom always says 'it's always good to give,'" he says. "[I've] got a great family and I've been blessed."

And what about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, compared to the rich and the working poor, they give less. "The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor," says Brooks. "The middle class give the least."



The Church Connection

Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.

Who gives?  ;)

 :hihi:

very interesting article. obviously, this is a surprise to many.

the two points above i found particularly interesting.

Conseratives are also more likely to be pychotic too :)

    Lohse, a social work master?s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

    Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse?s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person?s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush. [...]

    ?Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,? Lohse says. ?If your world is very mixed up, there?s something very comforting about someone telling you, ?This is how it?s going to be.??

    The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on. [...]

    ?Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,? the study says.


hehehehe - I think its dumb, but still pretty funny  :hihi:

hanna - obviously, you REALLY felt the need to post something negative about conservatives, but come on. that shit is ridic.

now go drop some coins in the salvation army bucket....and don't be cheap!  :hihi:

You know, I've never really concerned myself with who ELSE gives.  I just don't care.  All that matters is that I (well, my family and I) give what we're able to.  Privately.  What someone else's charitable contributions and affiliations are is there own business...conservative, liberal, or otherwise.

if you don't care, why did you bother reading this thread???

Glorious, just glorious

Living proof that stats will tell u any story you wish to tell!

maybe they should perhaps er...maybe.....tell the reader they base that average from total donations divided by total 'donars' and that some of those donars give a billion dollars a go

Because I was interested in the message of the article, it's findings (or rather, how it arrived at them),  and wondered why ANYONE would care.

I got pretty much what I expected on all 3 fronts.

So, now the question bounces back to you:  Why do YOU care what anyone else gives to charity?  Or how they give it?  Because, so far, it looks like the reason you care (ditto Mr. Flagg) is to push a political ideology.....partisanship...rather than any real concern for the people who NEED the charity.

Again, I don't care who gives what.  What I give is my business.  What Randall gives is his business.  What SLC gives is his business.  And tying it all to some sort of political agenda seems both disingenious and counter to the act, itself.

thanks for the 3rd grade math lesson, but what is your point? that americans are NOT charitable?

i've worked on fund raisers and solicited donations for several groups, and i was stunned at how generous people can be.

and for most families that attend church on a regular basis, $1,800 is probably a low figure.

Tithing and/or putting cash in the plate does not, last time I checked, count as donations to charity....if that's what you mean.   At least not from a "legal" standpoint (tax deductions).

If you're insinuating that a "regular church goer" donates more simply because they go to church....I'd like to see a real scientific basis for that assertion.  And not the very unscientific foundation of the above article.....

I don't give 1 red cent to the Church, they have enough money.

But I find the person who wrote this article very sad.  People who do give should be viewed positively, not as a statistic.

I won't even bother to write here who I do give to because I am not that sad and self-indulgent and I don't do it for that reason.

I have to be careful u see, must of u lot get confused if i go into greater depth


Yeah, probably.

Thats this article is worthless spin?

Yeah definetly



Americans are always willing to make sacrifices to help others...yes, always

....like blocking environmental polcies because it would ''hurt the economy''. God damn, cant have that now! ::)



 :rofl:

You just cant be serious, either thats naive nonsense your spewing or hopeless rightwing propoganda

''the family that prays together stays together' < was that one of urs too?


How many thousands have you given to charity?

Arent poor people just lazy?

Wait, is that Republican or Nazi mentality - i get confused between the two....

Exactly my point.

The article is somwhat wrong minded in both it's conclusions and it's methodology.  In addition, the only REAL survey it cites is using both 6 year+ old data AND was simply a phone survey.  I can only speak anecdotally, but, for me...when I get a phone survey and they ask about my charitable donations/ volunteerism....I tell them I prefer not to discuss those things with anyone outside my family...it's just not their business.  I'm sure others lie (in both directions).  The problem with phone surveys is just that...they're phone surveys....requiring little to no corroberation.

And Brooks's words?  Well, lets just say the author of this article is "spinning" even his posiiton.  Here's an exact quote from Brooks' book "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism":

"So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer."

So conservatives donate more money, liberals donate more time.

Look...it's a fluff 20/20 piece, much like most of John Stossel's stuff.  It's a sensationalistic headline bolstered by not much hard evidence and lots of "spin" to make the story seem meaty.

All of which  doesn't much matter.  Again, I don't care what anyone else gives, or what their political affiliation is.  It is interesting to look at the article for what it is, though....and what it isn't.

wow! pilferk and izzy, this article has obviously really struck a nerve with you guys. i think you are taking this way to seriously.

a couple quick points...

first off, i don't give a rats ass who dontes money. like many others, i just thought this was an interesting article. so please, no need to state that you donate. i think we've established that no one cares. ?

second, churches guilt people to give money, and many with young children are required to "donate" (ex. families with children in catholic school). and the elderly give WAY to much money to their churches. this isn't scientific on my part, just what i have noticed.

No, not a nerve.  Just...interesting isn't even the right word....sort of more "setting off the BS meter".  From someone who works day in and day out with clinicians doing research, this kind of thing always perks my ears up.  And on the contrary...I don't take the article seriously at all...but obviously some posters did, by the comments that followed.

What DID strike a nerve was the "agenda" by posters FOLLOWING the article....and the wrongheaded way the article was both presented and interpreted.  You were the most obvious "offender" with your glib comment to Hanna...joke or not.  Charity is about charity.  Nothing else.  And to use it to portray being "better" than another ideology, or to goad/tease someone from that ideology, is contrary to the entire sentiment behind charity......

"Donations" to the church (for example, to get into private school) don't count as charity, I'm pretty sure, from a legal/tax standpoint.  You're not donating to a charitable organization directly (though the church may then take that money and do just that), you're donating to the church, itself. 

i didn't take this article seriously. neither did hanna. i think both of our jokes made that clear. i thought it was obvious i wasn't being serious when i made that comment. and i sure as hell don't have an agenda.

anyway, my train stop is coming up. this made it a quick ride. have a good weekend!  :peace:

This is exactly the reason I do not give to the Church.  I clearly remember being 8 years old and given my little envelopes in Sunday School and being told that if I didn't come to church with them with money in them every Sunday that God would know and I would go to hell.  They also told us the envelopes were specially marked and they would know if we didn't give.  I can still remember the terror I felt when this happened.

That sounds like you took the article pretty seriously to me.

That, combined with the glib comment.....

I think Hanna was trying to point out the absurdity of the original article with his own absurd article.

 Your response (the 1st part, anyway) seemed pretty serious, too.  The 2nd part I assume might have been a joke...which is why I said what I did, giving you the benefit of the doubt.

As for having an "agenda"...and by that I mean a political viewpoint...I think previous posts prove you do have one and are not afraid to "push it".

hahah, i even said it was stupid myself - but i posted it b/c its just as ridiculous as the original post.  If you think the blurb i posted was to say something negative about conservatives, don't you think that the original post was to say something negative about liberals?  works both ways dude.  both articles/blurbs are retarded.

BINGO (except the part about Hanna = a her.  HannaHat is ALL MAN!  : ok: hehe). 

The intent of posting this article was just to rile those of us non-conservatives up - all it did for me was a big ole'  ::)

There's alot more credibility to this study than most of the AOL or other internet polls some of you site.  Most of the polls you people provide are the equivalent of Jarmo asking this board which band is the greatest ever and when Gn'R won, calling it valid and spreading the results.  I posted this article because it helps dispel the myth that "conservatives" hate the poor and do nothing to help them while "liberals" dedicate their lives to selfless causes.

But thats just the point, it doesn't....

Its sample is grossly unsound and am i the only one to notice that traditionally ''conservative'' support comes from middle to upper class voters = people with more money

So even if they did give more per person, even if that was shown - it would STILL mean nothing

I like this article better:

(By the way Randall, this was linked on the same page as yours but instead you chose the politally charged one, go figure)

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/HolidayTheme/story?id=2682100&page=1

Are Americans Cheap? Or Charitable?
Fighting the 'Stingy' Stereotype
By JOHN STOSSEL and GENA BINKLEY
Nov. 28, 2006 ? - There is a big focus on giving at this time of the year.

Do you give? Or are you cheap? I keep hearing that "Americans are cheap."

The New York Times asks in an editorial, "Are we cheap?"

"Yes," they say. Former President Carter recently said the rich states "don't give a damn" about people in poor countries. And when it comes to helping the needy in poor countries, U2 singer Bono says, "It's the crumbs off our tables that we offer these countries."

Crumbs because many other countries, such as Norway, Portugal and Japan, give a larger share of their wealth to needy countries.

The United States gave out $20 billion in foreign aid last year, but as a percentage of our wealth, we rank 21st out of the 22 major donor countries.

Actress Angelina Jolie is horrified by it.


"It's disgusting. It really is disgusting," she said. "I think most American people, you know, really do think we give more. And I know that they would if they could understand how little they give and how much more we can afford to give, absolutely, without even noticing it."



Generous Americans?

But wait a second. ? When talking aid, why just talk about what the government gives?

Jolie could look to herself as an example of the generous American. She gives her time and her money to charities around the world. So do millions of other Americans. ? America is not just our government. America is 300 million individuals, and their contributions far exceed what government gives.

America is anything but cheap.

Carol Adelman at the Hudson Institute has studied how much Americans give privately in foreign aid. She says it's a myth that Americans are stingy.


"We're one of the most generous people in the world, and that's because of our private philanthropy," she said.


Adelman published her findings in the institute's "Index of Global Philanthropy," which found that while the U.S. government gave about $20 billion in foreign aid in 2004, privately, Americans gave $24.2 billion.

On top of that, immigrants in America send about $47 billion abroad to family members and home towns. That's anything but stingy.


"Americans give abroad like they do domestically, through their private institutions," Adelman said.



After the tsunami two years ago, the U.S. government pledged approximately $900 million to relief efforts, but American individuals gave $2 billion in food, clothing and cash.

Many private charities could barely keep up with the donations.


'No Other Country Comes Close'

The fact that most of America's charitable gifts come from volunteers, not government, demonstrates that Americans are different from people in every other country.


"No other country comes close," said Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. Brooks studies charitable giving and has a new book, "Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide."

"The fact is that Americans give more than the citizens of any other country. ? They also volunteer more," Brooks said. "Americans per capita individually give about three and a half times more money per year, than the French per capita. ? Seven times more than the Germans and 14 times more than the Italians."

"Now, you might notice that these other countries have different average incomes or different tax systems," he said. "But even when you take that into account, Americans give 10 times more than the Italians. The fact is, that Americans give on a different scale than anybody else in the world."


The Men in Blue

Thank goodness we do because charity does it better. I notice the difference on my way to work because in my neighborhood, the men in blue -- that's what they call themselves -- clean the streets.

Who are they, I wondered? They say they are ready, willing and able, and they do this menial work energetically.

They're not volunteers. It turns out that they're former street people. ? Ex-alcoholics and drug addicts. The Doe Fund, a private charity, puts them to work while they try to teach them to be responsible and to stay clean.

One year after entering the program, most of the men in blue are drug-free and employed. That's twice the success rate of other shelters in the city.

William Hurst went through eight different rehab programs before this charity taught him the self-respect you get from work.


"I respect myself again, I'm drug-free. After I completed the drug counseling, they put me out in the field immediately. ? And to me, that's the most important thing, staying clean and working," he said.


I'm still not sure exactly what makes this charity so successful, but it clearly has discovered ? something.

I've never seen government workers do work like this -- with this kind of enthusiasm

"I enjoy doing what I do. It just keeps me motivated," said Allen Corey Funderburg, another trainee.

Nazerine Griffin, one of the supervisors and an ex-addict, said simply, "Private funders do it better."


Private Charities

That's why I donate money to that charity and to Central Park, where, full disclosure, I'm a director of the charity that's helped clean it up.

About 20 years ago, the park was in terrible disrepair. The lawns were barren and eroding.

Buildings were covered with graffiti. The government kept promising to restore it, but never did.

Yet now, the park is beautiful. Central Park is now the No. 2 tourist destination in New York City. ? Because our private charity now manages the park, and pays for most of its upkeep.

One more example.

In Namibia, in West Africa, a country ravaged by the AIDS crisis, many orphans were being neglected, even though the country got $161 million in foreign aid from the U.S. government.

A little church in Maryland decided it should help. Members of the Mount Zion United Methodist Church decided that they'd use their own money to build and fund an orphanage, The Children of Zion Village, in Namibia.

Today, the children, many of whom lived on the streets -- one little boy was found living in a tire -- are safe and smiling and going to school.

Now church members fly from Maryland to Africa to volunteer at the orphanage, and meet the child they sponsored.

"The children know who their sponsor is. ? And so there's a relationship there. We're a family," said Rebecca Mink, who runs the Namibian orphanage.

That's charity working the uniquely American way.

Regardless of what our government does, Americans are anything but cheap.

Americans gave $260 billion away in charity last year -- that's about $900 per person.



Copyright ? 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

Flagg, once again Bandita has exposed you.  Your agenda was so painfully obvious in posting that.

I really don't agree with this topic anyway.  As I said previously I think it's pretty sad for anyone to discuss what they do give.  I find it even more sad that someone would post an article like this to fuel a political agenda.  I would like to think both sides of the coin agree that charity is worthwhile and also personal. :peace:

I'm not gonna lie, I think most liberals are all talk and little action (this board backs that up). ?I actually saw this article on digg.com, so I posted it here. ?I liked it because it hit on a point I argue all the time, liberals do little themselves becuase they want/believe the government to do it for them. ?They want more social programs (at the expense of the wealthy) so that they can feel better about themselves knowing they voted to spend someone else's money to aide someone they've never met. ?But in all fairness, I did not choose this article over any other. ?Again, i saw it on digg.com and posted it here.

So you agree right there that you post with an agenda.

Screw peace and goodwill, lets just fight over nonsense like who gives more! ::)

Actually, doesn't this piece compliement my article.  It says that the goverment ran organizations (backed by liberals) suck at helping the poor while private organizations (backed by conservatives) in america are the most generous world wide.

Did you read something in that article typed in invisible ink because it says nothing about political sides.  It simply states that Americans are very charitable as a whole.  You keep wanting to make it about sides, I wasn't aware that it was about that.  Funny, I thought it was about helping others.

I    WILL    EXPLAIN   IT    NICE    AND    SIMPLE   FOR   YOU    BANDITA.       Liberals support social programs and bigger government.  That means liberals would favor the government aiding the poor.  Conservatives traditionally dislike social programs and want a minimal government.  They rely of charity and private organizations to help the needy.  Your article concludes that the horse traditionally backed by conservatives helps the world's needy more than the horse backed by the liberals.

THE ARTICLE I POSTED SAYS NOTHING OF THE LIKE :hihi:

It's about Americans being more charitable than the Government, big deal who didn't know that?  Also a citation about how US Immigrants send money home to their families (are they all conservatives in your mind as well?)

I find it SAD that you take a nice topic such as charitable giving and turn it into a political fued. It really shows how low the "conservatives" are willing to go.

You can't really blame him/them....Repubs have so little to brag about right now and so much to be ashamed of that they will take anything they can find right now to make themselves look good.

The sad truth:  You can find an article on anything that will help fuel a political agenda.  If I don't like the 1st one I read I can read a few more and will find someone who agrees with my views.

Doing this makes us more sad than the media whose job it is to fill our heads with hate and propaganda.  We should be smarter than this but we aren't.

Nice job taking goodwill and turning it into something ugly, Randall. :no:

I think a better study than who puts more money toward charities is who puts in more time and work to charities?

To me, putting in volunteer time and work for charities is better than (or at the very least, just as good as) a monetary donation.

Actually, not much...

Sure, you can argue the sample is a bit more diverse, but...a phone poll is a phone poll with all the issues surrounding sed poll (including truthfullness, demographic limits, social and class biases, etc).

Again, even the SOURCE of some of the info in the article doesn't exactly support what's being said in it.  He says, himself, conservatives are more likely to give money, liberals more likely to give time.  Sounds like a wash to me.  The article in question, though, seems to be ONLY looking at money...and not looking at it very well, either.

That's the most gross overgeneralization and wrongheaded interpretation I think one person could make after reading the article in question.....

Your bias is clouding your reason on this one.

Really?? I think TALKING about charity, in the manner you are, is demonstration of "all talk and little action", personally.  Doing it to push your "agenda" is disingenious and completly contrary to the concept, as a whole.


"Do little themselves"?? Where do you get THAT from the article.? Talk about misinterpretation of even the wrongheaded information presented.....

You interpretation of what "liberals" want is so insanely skewed by your bias it's not even funny.? You believe what you want to believe, and then shoehorn everything in to fit that stereotype that you've constructed.

Your views on charity seem to be so warped, it's not really even worth discussing the matter with you, quite frankly.

Somebody pass me the popcorn............