Why don't liberals put their money where their mouth is?
--conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household.
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
******* People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. *****
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
- Anonymous7 years agoFavorite Answer
Sorry, Brooks has been refuted :
"Leaving aside the fraught question of whether charitable donations and taxes serve the same question, is this really true? Do conservatives give more away? According to a new study by two MIT political scientists, not really.
Michele Margolis and Michael Sances note that Brooks’ conclusion comes from a dataset that doesn’t really ask how conservative people are politically so much as how conservative they are socially. Using a dataset which uses more traditional questions to test political beliefs – the General Social Survey – they found no statistically significant relationship between peoples’ political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level. And this held at the state level too. There was no significant relationship between a state’s level of giving and the vote share that Bush received in that state in 2004."
- Anonymous7 years ago
The VAST majority of the charity you speak of is given to churches - most of which don't even need the money.
The rich republican conservative evangelical base gives countless millions to the churches of their choice every year - way out of whack with where some of that money REALLY should go !!
Ordinary conservative evangelical folks do the same thing. It just happens that Liberals donate where the money is NEEDED and conservatives tend to be more well-off financially on the backs of Liberals, which of course has always been the case.
Conservatism was BORN awash in money and has stayed that way.
In the original form in the United Kingdom - the birthplace of western democracy - called the 'Westminster' form of governance - those who were well off - and there were plenty of them in a society based on a 'class' system - while almost all the rest lived in abject poverty - NO 'middle class' to speak of - the wealthy were and still are called 'Tories' - and that ladies and gentlemen is a VERY BAD connotation over there to this day in the middle and lower classes - rightfully so, I might add.
Thus the above question being properly compartmentalized, shows the lack of study of the subject matter when all is taken into the proper context.Source(s): The facts, m'am, just the facts.
- josnyelLv 43 years ago
i don't think of the conventional "liberal" has ever been a huge inventory marketplace investor. it particularly is greater of a Republican pursuit. yet enable's be trouble-free -- maximum folk have 401(ok)s or IRAs, and maximum folk have purely enable the money sit down there and holiday out the hurricane, on a similar time as we proceed to frequently make investments nominal quantities in those money. top now, retaining is purely right suited. procuring into something new is volatile, by using fact no person is familiar with what businesses will stay to tell the story; and merchandising is many times unwell-recommended, on account which you're purely locking on your losses. in case you're available-taker, that is particularly an alluring time to speculate, by using fact fees are low, and in case you hit on a inventory that could stay to tell the story the downturn, you stand to make quite a few income. The trick, of direction, is determining which shares may be the winners, and maximum folk are not keen to take that possibility top now -- liberal and conservative alike.
- JimLv 57 years ago
While it is certainly true that Mitt Romney gave more to charity than President Obama, the put their money where their mouth is is not a universal argument for all liberals. Although I strongly disagree with the vast majority of Mayor Bloomberg's nanny state laws and public policies regarding gun control, he has put in $12 million dollars of his money for the anti-second amendment push by the leftist politicians. Even though his mouth is spewing inaccurate statistics and spinning conjecture and recent events to claim justification for his stance against a constitutional amendment that has been upheld many times by the Supreme Court of The United States, he did put his money where his mouth is. Yes, I realize that the financial involvement with charitable giving is different than the left wing disarm Americans agenda of Bloomberg, Obama, Feinstein and others and that the financial involvement is more of an exception for liberals than for conservatives, we have to acknowledge that it does occur.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- JimLv 77 years ago
In 2006, Arthur Brooks made headlines with a provocative finding from his book Who Really Cares: despite stereotypes of liberals caring more about the poor, conservatives were purported to be more generous when it comes to giving to charities. These results stirred the political pot by taking “bleeding heart liberals” to task for their stinginess when it comes to their own money. . . . we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving, conditional on observable characteristics. Further, when we use partisanship rather than ideology to measure liberalism, there is no statistical difference in giving, regardless of whether we adjust for observable characteristics.
- Wage SlaveLv 77 years ago
I personally believe that religion is a large player here. Conservatives are more likely to be religion and to attend church more regularly than their liberal counterparts. The collection plate is put in front of them every Sunday and, as a consequence, conservatives give more than liberals who are not faced with an offering plate once or more per week.
I'd be curious as to how they got these figures. I mean, are they going by red states versus blue states? I've never once been asked my political affiliation when donating to charity.
- 7 years ago
Lol. For every liberal that blames Bush, someone should donate $1 to charity then you can credit them for contributing.
- Anonymous7 years ago
No one has ever asked me about my political party affiliation nor my ideological views when I have donated time, money or items to charity. These 'studies' are just going by the stupid red/blue state comparisons.. well, there are blue people in red states and red people in blue states..Most people, and states, are various shades of purple.
Tithing doesn't really count as giving directly to a charity.
- tehabwaLv 77 years ago
Most of the people who have most of the money are conservatives.
That's assuming that the sources are even accurate.
- Anonymous7 years ago
I am the needy I dont habe nothing not even a bank account so shut your mouth.. the liberals help us out more then you snobs ever will