Who Really Cares?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Just watched another great Stossel-mentary about giving in America. Turns out that although conservative-headed families make slightly less money, they actually out-give liberal-headed families. i must admit that surprised me. Also of the 25 most generous states in terms of giving donations, 24 of them are red states.

Says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks: "When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about thirty percent more per conservative-headed family than per liberal-headed family. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.

They did a very un-scientific test by putting a Salvation Army pot in Union Square in San Francisco and one at Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls, SD for 2 days. Despite the fact that SF has many more people that make much more money and the traffic past the SF pot was twice that of the one at the SD Walmart, the SF pot had only half the amount of donations as the one in Sioux Falls. Again, not very scientific, but rather telling.

Stossel then highlighted Brooks’ theory as to how differences in political philosophy concerning the role of government in people’s lives has contributed to this difference in giving:

Stossel: "Conservatives are even eighteen percent more likely to donate blood. Brooks says it's because of the different role that conservatives and liberals see for government."

Brooks: "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."

As for which economic class is more giving, Stossel reported Brooks’ findings that while the rich contribute more in total dollars, the working poor actually donates a higher percentage of their income, while the middle class gives the least:

Stossel: "The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare. While the rich give more in overall dollars, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost thirty percent more of their income than the rich...A graph of giving in America resembles a ski jump. The people on each end give a higher percentage."

Brooks: "The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor. The middle class give the least."

[3D23]

I watched this, and was fascinated. I have always suspected the findings to be true, but I suppose you could skew the numbers whichever direction you wish.

I have to admit, there were quite a few wealthy philanthropists that I was impressed with. Especially Broads. Giving, but giving smart, actually researching what you are giving to, where your money is going, there needs to be much more of this.

As with Buffet and Gates, Gates started his own organization, and Buffet gave him his money to invest into the programs. First, it takes a mighty strong man to do this without fear of ramifications on his manhood. Yes, many men are very dumb this way. Second, Buffet knows and trusts Gates to use the money wisely. Both parties are well served.

Jolie and Bono need to get the fuck off my screen now. What kills me about these two asshats is, if they bothered to do just a SMALL amount of research on the countries they are crying about, they would discover that these governments will not give the cocktails for AIDS, and barely concede to condom usage. The money they recieve from countries such as the US goes right into refurnishing the palacial estates of the crooked politicians and heads of state. They love the aid they get from us, it affords them a lavish lifestyle, all the while 1,000's die daily from the disease. How much money throwing at the problem has to occur before we take a different attack at this? Jolie, it's great that you choose to live your life in this fashion and give of your time and talents, but tell me, when was the last time you actually saw a Sudanese RECEIVE the AIDS drug cocktail fromt he government?

And Bono, just STFU and sing. You are an idiot.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Well put, 3D! It was interesting that while the aid from the US govt is such a low percentage compared to other countries (although by far the most $), individual giving of Americans far exceeds that of individuals of other countries.

[maurice]

Small-government conservatives should be big proponents of charitable giving.

Being opposed to government-run social services doesn't mean that you're opposed to any social services.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Small-government conservatives should be big proponents of charitable giving.

Being opposed to government-run social services doesn't mean that you're opposed to any social services.

I agree. That is why I liked W's proposal for faith-based initiatives. But a lot of folks on the left heard the word "faith" and it seemed to spook them into their church/state separation position.

[samram]

I agree. That is why I liked W's proposal for faith-based initiatives. But a lot of folks on the left heard the word "faith" and it seemed to spook them into their church/state separation position.

Well, I think what maurice is saying is that small government services would prefer welfare-type services be provided by private organizations, whether faith-based or not (not to speak for him), just so long as the government is not involved. IIRC, faith-based initiatives consist of giving federal funding to faith-based groups which provide services. Bid difference.

[soxwon]

I watched this, and was fascinated. I have always suspected the findings to be true, but I suppose you could skew the numbers whichever direction you wish.

I have to admit, there were quite a few wealthy philanthropists that I was impressed with. Especially Broads. Giving, but giving smart, actually researching what you are giving to, where your money is going, there needs to be much more of this.

As with Buffet and Gates, Gates started his own organization, and Buffet gave him his money to invest into the programs. First, it takes a mighty strong man to do this without fear of ramifications on his manhood. Yes, many men are very dumb this way. Second, Buffet knows and trusts Gates to use the money wisely. Both parties are well served.

Jolie and Bono need to get the fuck off my screen now. What kills me about these two asshats is, if they bothered to do just a SMALL amount of research on the countries they are crying about, they would discover that these governments will not give the cocktails for AIDS, and barely concede to condom usage. The money they recieve from countries such as the US goes right into refurnishing the palacial estates of the crooked politicians and heads of state. They love the aid they get from us, it affords them a lavish lifestyle, all the while 1,000's die daily from the disease. How much money throwing at the problem has to occur before we take a different attack at this? Jolie, it's great that you choose to live your life in this fashion and give of your time and talents, but tell me, when was the last time you actually saw a Sudanese RECEIVE the AIDS drug cocktail fromt he government?

And Bono, just STFU and sing. You are an idiot.

they probably wont change even when a GOP wins the election.
I cant wait to see the looks/sounds of democrats the day after they LOSE the election.
The what happeneds and it was fixed, will be heard nationally
But america will wake up knowing, we are in SAFER hands with the GOP.
I said safer and SAFE, theres a lot to be done believe me.

[SABRSox]

You keep thinking that, soxwon. Don't cry when I'm dancing in the streets on 11/5/2008.

[soxwon]

You keep thinking that, soxwon. Don't cry when I'm dancing in the streets on 11/5/2008.


with who i ask? Hilarity?

[SABRSox]

Edwards '08.

[maurice]

Yeah, the "faith-based" stuff is just a way to funnel taxpayer money to certain religious groups. My point is that the government shouldn't be paying for all of this shit with tax dollars. Let the religious groups get their funding in the form of private donations.

[1951Campbell]

Edwards '08.

:rolling:

[Spider_Pig]

I'm seriously planning a late entry into the '08 election. :thinking:

[Palehose13]

They did a very un-scientific test by putting a Salvation Army pot in Union Square in San Francisco and one at Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls, SD for 2 days. Despite the fact that SF has many more people that make much more money and the traffic past the SF pot was twice that of the one at the SD Walmart, the SF pot had only half the amount of donations as the one in Sioux Falls. Again, not very scientific, but rather telling.

One thing to consider is that homosexuals tend not to give to the Salvation Army because of their very anti-gay stance and this pot was in...San Francisco. :shrug:

Secondly, I don't give to charitable organiztions in the street/in front of stores because a portion of my paycheck each month goes to the Gilda Club (cancer) and HIV/AIDS research and support. I'm sure there are other people like me out there.

So yeah...looks like a very unscientific and biased research.

[SABRSox]

:rolling:
I'll be voting for Kucinich in the primaries, unless it's really close here in California between Clinton and Edwards, in which case I'll vote for Edwards.

Hillary is the Dem candidate I like the least during this cycle.

[MeanFish]

I'll be voting for Kucinich in the primaries, unless it's really close here in California between Clinton and Edwards, in which case I'll vote for Edwards.

Hillary is the Dem candidate I like the least during this cycle.

Isn't it interesting how you just can't seem to find a politically interested person who really latches onto Hillary at all?

Also, to not hijack this thread, red states typically have fewer taxes to pay, and as a result someone making a little bit less can wind up with more disposable income than someone making a little more in a blue state.

And, does tithing at church count? That could potentially create some disparity between the groups.

Not that this isn't interesting -- it is very much so. I'm curious what conditions make this true though.

[samram]

One thing to consider is that homosexuals tend not to give to the Salvation Army because of their very anti-gay stance and this pot was in...San Francisco. :shrug:

Secondly, I don't give to charitable organiztions in the street/in front of stores because a portion of my paycheck each month goes to the Gilda Club (cancer) and HIV/AIDS research and support. I'm sure there are other people like me out there.

So yeah...looks like a very unscientific and biased research.

Good post. Not putting money in that pot doesn't necessarily mean a person is uncharitable; it could be that they just don't like the charity.

[SABRSox]

My problem with Hillary is that she's too much of a hawk. I don't believe her when she says she wants out of Iraq.

I'm also opposed to candidates with ties or former ties to the DLC.

[Palehose13]

I like Hillary as a person (from what I see from media). I think she is a strong woman and a decent role model for young women. With that said, I don't think she would make a good president. In fact, I don't think many of these jokers would make a good president. I'm with SABR, Kucinich is my man. Edwards is second and he has a much better chance than my man Dennis. Maybe I'll just move to Ohio. :omg:

[Spider_Pig]

I pretty much agree for the most part. I have no problem with her as a person, but being president of the country is a different story.

[itsnotrequired]

One thing to consider is that homosexuals tend not to give to the Salvation Army because of their very anti-gay stance and this pot was in...San Francisco. :shrug:

Secondly, I don't give to charitable organiztions in the street/in front of stores because a portion of my paycheck each month goes to the Gilda Club (cancer) and HIV/AIDS research and support. I'm sure there are other people like me out there.

So yeah...looks like a very unscientific and biased research.

Classic Stossel.

[Bonzosa]

Stossel is such a smoke and mirrors chump.
I would be interested to see the rates of giving if you remove religious donations...

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I wish Stossel would run as a Libertarian. He would inject instant credibility and could possibly elevate the party to relevance.

[SABRSox]

Yeah, because everybody wants to vote for a 2nd rate reporter.

Why not run David Broder up there while your at it.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Hey, I'll take a second-rate reporter over a second-rate lawyer or a third-rate first lady any time

[CaptainBallz]

:rolling:

Paul '08??

:shrug:


One's a bit more likely than the other, I think....

Hey, I'll take a second-rate reporter over a second-rate lawyer or a third-rate first lady any time

You don't seem the type to really care as long as the person has an (R) after his name..

[1951Campbell]

Paul '08??

:shrug:


One's a bit more likely than the other, I think....



I predict they both get the same number of electoral votes in the end, let's put it that way. :cool:

[CaptainBallz]

good point

[soxwon]

:rolling:

you mean CON EDWARDS- The biggest con artist to come down the pike, since snake oil salesmen in the old west.

[SABRSox]

you mean CON EDWARDS- The biggest con artist to come down the pike, since snake oil salesmen in the old west.
Nice. Some REAL acute political insight there...

[soxwon]

Nice. Some REAL acute political insight there...

Works for me lib.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

You don't seem the type to really care as long as the person has an (R) after his name..


That is a big assumption on your part. You should dig a little deeper before you cast aspersions. I am not beyond supporting a non-republican, but finding one with my ideals is next to impossible. I voted for Perot twice (92 & 96). Harold Ford Jr is definitely my kind of Democrat. Lieberman was another before he got
:indieasfuck:

[CaptainBallz]

That is a big assumption on your part. You should dig a little deeper before you cast aspersions. I am not beyond supporting a non-republican, but finding one with my ideals is next to impossible. I voted for Perot twice (92 & 96). Harold Ford Jr is definitely my kind of Democrat. Lieberman was another before he got


well, I'm not going to go research the life and times of Fuller Schettman. I can only work with what you give me.

But with that information, I'll change my original statement to "You don't seem the type to really care as long as the person has an (R) after his name or is a Republican that puts a (D) after his name.

[Prope]

you mean CON EDWARDS- The biggest con artist to come down the pike, since snake oil salesmen in the old west.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/02/limbaugh/vert.rush.jpg
"I love Da Rev!!!"

[Pick a name, Buddy]

well, I'm not going to go research the life and times of Fuller Schettman. I can only work with what you give me.

But with that information, I'll change my original statement to "You don't seem the type to really care as long as the person has an (R) after his name or is a Republican that puts a (D) after his name.

Just google me, man! I am all over the interwebs! Or you can rent the DVD.

Can you support any republican types? (I tried googling your life and times but all I get is a bunch of porn)

;)

[CaptainBallz]

Just google me, man! I am all over the interwebs! Or you can rent the DVD.

Can you support any republican types? (I tried googling your life and times but all I get is a bunch of porn)

;)

:yup:

There are certain republicans that I can agree with on some issues, mainly on small-government related issues dealing with individual privacy, the ending of corporate welfare, and proper use of the military.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a dying breed of Republican and the "sound-byte right" has taken over, turning the party into the aconstitutional abomination it is today.

[itsnotrequired]

my favorite thing about libertarians is how they let everyone else know that they are a libertarian.