Anyone see John Asshole.. er.. Stossel this AM on ABC saying

[montieg]

liberals were not as philanthropic as conservatives. Had some "expert" I would like to reseach on. Looked on ABCNEWS site but could find no reference to this "expert".

[maxsolomon]

1. hard to be 'philanthropic' when you're not wealthy,

stosshole.

[Tempest]

2. Link to an article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.html


It should be noted that the "study" hasn't been peer reviewed and the methods used opened for evaluation.

[montieg]

3. THANKS!! Going to study now.

[karlrschneider]

9. This outfit is a very thinly disguised RW bullshit site

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/about.html

[Tempest]

19. I posted it to give the original poster a place to begin

I'm well aware of the web site's political leaning.

[karlrschneider]

22. I'm glad you did, I hadn't ever heard of it before. I like to keep tabs on

the enemy. :D

[montieg]

28. Tracked down the research Mr "Expert" uses--his own take

on some, in my opinion, questionable data. quote from Arthur C Brooks:

"How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their “civic behavior,” including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey.

From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as “religious” are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call “secular” report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to “religious causes” or “non-religious charities” over the previous 12 months. "

In other words, this is SELF-REPORTED data. The surveyers asked questions and the repondents told them how the acted. Specious to begin with. And Stosshole can turn that into an entire segment on national tv attacking them goddam dirty hippie libruls.

[wishlist]

4. Last I heard Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Ted Turner are on the liberal side n/t

[stopbush]

37. Yes, but then you're employing the "Bill Gates walks into a room...

"and the average wealth of everyone in the room just went through the roof" gambit.

A few wealthy liberals giving copious amounts of $ to charities would not skew overall statistics (I'm not saying
Stossel's statistics are correct, BTW).

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. And naturally, Stosshole's definition of

liberal is anyone who does not dote on everything he spews.

[Fridays Child]

12. Exactly. First, define "liberal" and, then, define charity.

This study was probably conducted by the same people who want us to believe that coal is clean energy. :eyes:

[SteppingRazor]

6. I remember reading about this study...

IIRC, the charities it used to measure giving were almost entirely church related.

on edit: In other words, charitable donations for this study included not just donations to 501c3 nonprofits, but also donations to one's church. Since many liberals are secular, but very few conservatives are, this skews the results.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Conservatives could start the world's largest

compost heap with all of the crap they spew.

[Lexingtonian]

8. with caveats, it's technically true

For one thing, church contributions are defined as philanthropy/charity in U.S. law, and without that it's parity. And for historical reasons and age/gender demographics- conservatives are percentagewise more white, more male, and more elderly than liberals- conservatives have a substantially larger proportion of the national income and national wealth overall.

That being said, John Stossel is the definition of clever idiot and 'stuck on stupid'. I can't watch him- his thinking is always so utterly centered in ego-based resentments and anti-snob class hatreds.

[Jacobin]

10. Yep. Its the church tithing thingy

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Sorry, But I Think The Evidence is Otherwise

(See my other post)

[Lexingtonian]

20. interesting

I think there isn't a fair way to quantify things in any case. When a single corrupt Republican billionaire donates a few hundred million to found a biomedical research institute to salvage his reputation in some respect, how can you measure that against a Walk for Hunger with 10,000 participants? (And yes, that is an example taken from Massachusetts- Cambridge specifically :-) )

[warrens]

15. As a percentage of income, it's the other way around

But both give to charities. It's a silly argument. Generally made only by the wingnutterific.

[billbuckhead]

17. Bogus alert! Church tithing isn't really charity or is donations to televangelists

Next, they''ll be trying say giving money to the NRA is charity. If John Stossell said the sun is shining, you better look out the window to make sure.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Stossel Should Look At This - If He Dares

From my site, Blue Works Better, which compares Red and Blue states.

Red vs. Blue: Charitable Giving

(Evidence is to the Right as sunlight is to vampires)

[karlrschneider]

25. Interesting. I agree it's a difficult metric.

:toast:

[Nite Owl]

13. Sometimes charity is measured more

in what you actually do to help others in need more than giving them money or giving to an organization (like the churches). Driving someone somewhere, giving them a meal, caring for a neighbor, those are things that liberals are more likely to be doing.

[stopbush]

16. I happen to work in non-profit fund raising.

A few facts that might interest you:

• Only 13-15% of the super-rich (ie: those people whose net worth is over $25-million) donate anything to charity. Most of them leave it all to their spawn.

• Donations to hospitals, universities and religious organizations account for 94% of the charitable giving in the USA. Non-profits like performing arts groups,
museums et al are scrambling for the 6% of the crumbs that are left.

• When it comes to bequests (ie: leaving money in your will), 68% of donors never tell the organization in advance; 31% of donors never gave a cash contribution
during their lives; 21% had no affiliation with the organization receiving the gift while they were alive.

Strange stuff.

Here's a couple of good sites to visit to learn about non-profits:

http://foundationcenter.org/

http://www.npt.org/

http://www.nptimes.com/

http://philanthropy.com/

Here's an article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy website:

Americans Give Bigger Share to Charity Than Residents of Other Countries

By Harvy Lipman

Americans donate a greater share of the country's economic output to charity than do the residents of 11 other countries, according to a new study.

The report, by the Charities Aid Foundation in the United Kingdom, found that giving in the United States equals 1.67 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. The United Kingdom was second among the 12 counties in the study, at 0.73 percent. France was last, at 0.14 percent.

Religious giving accounts for much of the difference between the United States and other nations, the study found. About 60 percent of the variation between the United States and the United Kingdom, the report states, is due to the higher rate at which Americans donate to religious organizations.

The British give a much higher percentage of their donations to international causes, however, with 13 percent of all giving in the United Kingdom going overseas, compared with just 3 percent of American contributions.

The report found that charitable giving tends to make up a smaller percentage of a nation's economic output in countries with higher tax levels, especially if tax money is used to finance insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare.

http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2006/11/2006112202.htm

[Skittles]

21. how would you KNOW if anyone ever gave a cash donation?

that is ridiculous

[KharmaTrain]

23. When You Itemize, You Itemize It All

"Cash" is a loose term for any money donated directly...and is tax deductable. Many wealthy can whittle their taxes down to zero with the proper deductions along with donations. A good tax accountant is worth thousands as they know how to bury the money or find ways deductions to offset earnings.

I write checks to many non-profit organizations...and, yes, I write them off. Even if I couldn't I'd still donate the same amounts I do to the organizations I support.

Of course the "rich" donate more...they have more to donate and more incentive to do so. Also, many "wage slaves" can make a donation through payroll...I did it to the United Way for many years...and I'm sure that isn't taken account in Mr. Stasshole's propaganda.

[Skittles]

30. I'm single, have never been able to itemize ANYTHING

apparently the donations of people like me are not worth those of others. So how would they know how many cash donations I make ???

[KharmaTrain]

32. I Very Much Relate

For many years...too many, I did the short form and got screwed by the tax laws. Even worse, I was married, rented and had a good chunk of my paycheck eaten away by SSI and FICA. I paid a bigger percentage of my income in taxes than I do now, despite having a lot bigger income (my first fulltime job paid a whopping 12k a year).

One major thing the Democratic majority must do, is work on tax relief for the middle class...first by making the tax cuts for those earning either 100k or 150k a year permanent and then re-indexing things to stop the bracket creep that still is based on what is considered "rich" by 80's standards...where someone making 50Gs or more a year was considered a lot more than today. And, of course, to permanently eliminate the marriage penalty...including to those who have civil unions and other "state sanctioned" legal marriages.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

38. Or for that matter, the number of hours

you volunteer which you cannot claim.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. Let me amplify your point...

Rich folks tend to donate to organizations with which they have some personal affiliation -- University libraries, Religious groups, Arts organizations, etc. -- which means that low-income persons get little to no direct benefit from their charity. This isn't to say that their gifts aren't generous, but it does mean that they don't have a broad impact on society compared to other types of charitable giving.

Another Point: I don't know about the statistics being cited here, but if they come off tax returns, then the figures are totally overlooking charitable contributions made by people who don't itemize their taxes -- which would be working class people who more typically vote Democratic.

And I would agree with other posts that the effect of charitable donations to churches should be exluded from the equation. Is the world a better place because I baked a pie for the youth group bake sale?

[stopbush]

27. The statistics I cited came from non-profit seminars that I have attended

in the past three years, including training seminars in planned giving. The stats are drawn from various
studies done within the non-profit industry.

As to the point raised in #21: "How would you know if someone ever gave a cash contribution?" One could easily arrive at such figures by polling
a percentage of donors and asking them the question. One doesn't need a montain of IRS info to arrive at a conclusion that is statistically reliable.

[montieg]

29. See my post replying to karlschneider earlier on the thread

as to where the data came from. It's not data--it's self-reported. Answers to questions--"how much do you give?"

[ItNerd4life]

33. My dad was a CPA and did people's taxes

He was always sickened by how little the wealthy gave to charities.

Thanks for all the links. I wonder if you remove church giving, what the percentages would be.

[stopbush]

39. Church giving accounts for 35% of total giving.

Note that these numbers may be skewed as 2005 was a big year for disasters and increased giving.

How much is given?

Americans give a lot to charity: $260.3 billion in 2005, a $15 billion increase over 2004. This is a 6.1% increase over 2004, though it is only a 2.7% increase if you consider the impact of inflation.

This total includes giving by individuals, corporations and foundations. These figures come from Giving USA, an annual summary of giving in the United States published by the Giving Institute (AAFRC.org).


Who gets all this money?

After religion ($93.2 billion in 2005), giving to colleges, universities and other educational organizations is the next largest category, totaling $38.6 billion in 2005

The largest percentage increase in 2005 went to human services charities, up 32%, to $25.4 billion. Even if you subtract giving in response to disasters, giving for human services was up 15%.

Giving to environmental and animal protection groups also went up a lot, more than 16%, to nearly $9 billion. Some believe this reflects increasing concern with environmental issues such as global warming.

Overall giving to international charities was up nearly 20%, to $6.4 billion. But when you exclude gifts in response to disasters, international giving dropped 5.1%.

Giving to arts, culture and humanities organizations went down by 6.6% (to a little more than $13 billion) while giving to health-related charities dropped 0.7% (to a little less than $22 billion).

Other categories include giving to foundations (about $24 billion), giving to “public-society benefit” organizations such as United Ways (about $13 billion) and giving to other causes (about $21 billion).

http://www.charitablechoices.org/chargive.asp

[Junkdrawer]

18. Mr. "Global Warming is a fraud" is still scrounging for a new issue...

...and a hint of his former credibility...

:rofl:

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Does Stossel count Repo donations to Charities run by the wife?

[Redbear]

31. Im guessing his Bible doesn't include Luke 21: 1-3

Luke 21

1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others.

[KellyW]

34. I wonder if

Donations to the new Bush library count ?

[trumad]

35. He also said that wrestling wasn't real...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj7uoKifagk

[The Stranger]

36. Isn't he the one that was beat up by a wrestler he was interviewing?