Obama and O'Reilly

[Coonass]

Conservatives more liberal givers
March 27, 2008
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- 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.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

When I think about what Al Gore's income must be and how little of it he is willing to give away to help make a personal difference in changing the wrongs that almost all of us would agree exist in this country, well, it pisses me off. That anyone can admire this man -- this very embodiment of hypocrisy (in a wide range of disciplines) -- amazes me.

This is the same guy who castigates the rest of us for the little things we do in our everyday lives and yet whose carbon footprint would stamp a ____ed-fancy tootsie-size swimming pool that all of our kids (and all of their friends) could splash in.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Despite his absolute ineptitude in utilizing simple equations of motion, I have to agree with Lebowski on this one. Sometimes, the government is the most efficient way of providing charitable services in an equitable fashion. I love the Republican excuse that they want to keep their own money and distribute it themselves to charitable organizations. How many spent their recent tax rebate on charity? How about their tax returns?

What a crock. American donate billions upon billions to private charities each year (much of that money coming from the "evil rich"). The numbers are sometimes so large as to be staggering. The organizations they donate to also tend (with exceptions) to be more efficiently run, and the funds are more effectively distributed than gov't could ever hope to be.

I've seen gov't welfare at work. My parents hired a woman who would only work a certain number of hours each week because if she worked more, she'd lose her welfare/unemployment benefits. She bragged about how "smart" she was to work the system. Or for a more concrete example, remember the $2000 debit card debacle after Katrina? Victims were supposed to have spent it on food and housing, and instead they found it was used to buy iPods and designer jeans.

Gov't is one of the worst vehicles for lifting the oppressed, and there's nothing immoral about being opposed to it. And it certainly is not "neighborly."

[YOhio]

Obama was very good on O'Reilly. He was combative, but not overly defensive and the interview was lively. Fun to watch. On the other hand, his interview with Olberman was pretty bad. If I were running the Obama campaign, I'd make him a weekly fixture on FoxNews. Put him on with Cavuto, Hannity, Greta and all the rest. He's at his best when the host isn't sucking up to him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26612909/

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Despite his absolute ineptitude in utilizing simple equations of motion, I have to agree with Lebowski on this one. Sometimes, the government is the most efficient way of providing charitable services in an equitable fashion. I love the Republican excuse that they want to keep their own money and distribute it themselves to charitable organizations. How many spent their recent tax rebate on charity? How about their tax returns?

If you believe the democrats most Republicans didn't get a rebate. Remember the "rich" didn't get a rebate.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

What a crock. American donate billions upon billions to private charities each year (much of that money coming from the "evil rich"). The numbers are sometimes so large as to be staggering. The organizations they donate to also tend (with exceptions) to be more efficiently run, and the funds are more effectively distributed than gov't could ever hope to be.

I've seen gov't welfare at work. My parents hired a woman who would only work a certain number of hours each week because if she worked more, she'd lose her welfare/unemployment benefits. She bragged about how "smart" she was to work the system. Or for a more concrete example, remember the $2000 debit card debacle after Katrina? Victims were supposed to have spent it on food and housing, and instead they found it was used to buy iPods and designer jeans.

Gov't is one of the worst vehicles for lifting the oppressed, and there's nothing immoral about being opposed to it. And it certainly is not "neighborly."

Anecdotal evidence is always so powerful.

The US has the highest percentage of charitable giving and the least progressive tax structure of all industrialized countries. The result? The most skewed wealth distribution.

You tell me which works better.

It's not a simple black-and-white "government sucks" answer, despite your attempts to make it so. There are areas where the government is much more efficient, others where it is less so. Sometimes you need the infrastructure that government provides.

My point is that the "leave charity to private organizations" folks often are just using this argument as an excuse to keep more of their money. The recent case in point is their use of their recent tax rebate checks. Republicans got what they wanted--more money in their pockets. What did they do with it? Spend it. I don't know of anyone who gave it to charity.

[fuegote]

I would rather give more to fast offerings than to the gov't to distribute.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Anecdotal evidence is always so powerful.

The US has the highest percentage of charitable giving and the least progressive tax structure of all industrialized countries. The result? The most skewed wealth distribution.

You tell me which works better.

It's not a simple black-and-white "government sucks" answer, despite your attempts to make it so. There are areas where the government is much more efficient, others where it is less so. Sometimes you need the infrastructure that government provides.

I don't think it would be that difficult to compare the effectiveness of private charity against gov't charity and find private coming out on top. There's probably one out there but I'm both too lazy and too busy to go find it.

The point is, I don't need the Obamessiah to legislate my neighborliness. I can do it on my own, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by ERCougar

My point is that the "leave charity to private organizations" folks often are just using this argument as an excuse to keep more of their money. The recent case in point is their use of their recent tax rebate checks. Republicans got what they wanted--more money in their pockets. What did they do with it? Spend it. I don't know of anyone who gave it to charity.

What was that about anecdotal evidence again?

[BYU71]

I actually wouldn't have a problem with redistributing rich peoples money if I didn't think it would hurt incentive and economic growth.

CEO's who get paid hundreds of millions of dollars and are the shits are overpaid. News anchors and Hollywood movie stars are overpaid. All entertainers, including athletes are overpaid. People like the Clintons, Obama's, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are overpaid. Rush and Hannity are overpaid. Tax the hell our of all of those folks and it won't hurt a thing if they quit doing what they are doing.

The entrepreneur though, that is another story. He or she starts a company and builds it and provides jobs. No one else is going to do their job. You kill their chance to get way ahead and you kill that entrpreneurial spirit or at least dampen it in large measure.

If you have been a successful businessman and have accumulated $5-$10 million dollars are you going to risk that capital if the government plans on taking 50% or more of the return from you. If you lose it, you get to write off a whopping $3,000 a year against your taxes.

Hell no your aren't going to expand.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by fuegote

I would rather give more to fast offerings than to the gov't to distribute.

1. the govt. has public accountability for the funds it spends
2. The church has no accountability, and doesn't make its financials known.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

1. the govt. has public accountability for the funds it spends
2. The church has no accountability, and doesn't make its financials known.

Accountibility to who. Congress has a 10% approval rating. A major reason for that is the public's disgust at how they spend the money.

There are necessary things a government has to do and they have to tax people in order to do them. However, because it involves politics the spending is inefficient and wasteful to a large extent.