Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - Conservatives donate more than liberals

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

[Backslash]

Who gives? 

 

[sandman]

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

He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

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

the two points above i found particularly interesting.

[The Dog]

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 

[sandman]

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! 

[pilferk]

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! 

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.

[sandman]

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!?

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???

[Izzy]

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average.

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

[pilferk]

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

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.

[sandman]

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average.

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

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.

[pilferk]

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.....

[Bandita]

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.

[Izzy]

thanks for the 3rd grade math lesson,

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

but what is your point? that americans are NOT charitable?

Yeah, probably.

Thats this article is worthless spin?

Yeah definetly

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

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!

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

 

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....

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[sandman]

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.

[pilferk]

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

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. 

[sandman]

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

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 is contrary to the entire sentiment behind charity......

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! 

[Bandita]

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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

He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

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

the two points above i found particularly interesting.

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".

[The Dog]

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! 

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.