Stossel claims Conservatives more Generous than Liberals

[namvet73]

Stossel got my ire up when, on a 20/20 Special "Greed in America" that aired 11/29/06, John Stossel started the show by pointing out that Conservatives give more to charities than Liberals because liberals expect the government to do it.

I don't believe it, but I haven't found anything to debunk it with facts. I found nothing on mediamatters.org yet.

I know my mother watched that show and would like to have some answers for her after she starts up on liberals.

Stossel Page: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/

Sorry if this was already posted, but I could not find it.

[originalpckelly]

1. Gee that's odd...

considering how the conservative rich people in our country have screwed the poor so bad the poor pay more a percentage of their income in taxes than do the rich.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. The Evidence Says Otherwise

http://blueworksbetter.com/CharitableGiving

[namvet73]

4. Thankyou Thankyou Thankyou!

I'll print that out and keep it handy.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. You're Welcome! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Interesting. Washington State, the home of the $60b Bill and Melinda Gates foundation

Ranks either in the middle or at the bottom, depending on whom you ask.

If it is, (which I find suspect) there's a good reason - no income tax. No income tax, no state tax deduction. No tax deduction, no charity.

[NewJeffCT]

41. You're correct sir

I had an LTTE on this subject published a year or two back...

[goddess40]

3. Don't you want to know what kind of drugs he's taken

These right wing reporters are absolutely disgusting - spewing "fact" to support the continued pillaging of America.

[indepat]

24. Herr Stossel is right, far right: conservatives have sprinkled far more treasure on the wealthiest

and large corporations than liberals have ever sprinkled on the :little people."

[Brewman_Jax]

5. I wouldn't trust Stossel to give the correct time

without finding a way to spin it to blame liberals. :eyes:

[a kennedy]

6. Yeah, he was on The View yesterday too.........you should have seen

Elizabeth's eyes open when he said that......just what the little conservative wanted to hear. Oh and she got invited to the White House for some shindig, said her husband couldn't attend so she's taking Rosie O'Donnell instead!!

[sandnsea]

10. Okay, she gets big props for that

Taking Rosie?? Wow. You gotta' admit that's a really great thing for her to do.

[9119495]

7. Don't waste your time on Stossel. A funny story...

Stossel offers up his right-wing propaganda videos for free to any classroom that requests them. The plan is probably to get teachers to jump at the chance to show a video instead of teach (which I'm sad to say a few in my profession actually do). I requested one of the videos immediately...and promptly destroyed it with a hammer. One less Stossel video to go around.

He also claimed the robber barons were good guys in one of his piece of shit books. He went on the Daily Show to promote it and more than any other time I've seen, Stossel got his ass handed to him. Stewart generally seems to think if a guest is willing to come on the show, they are worthy of respectful treatment. I guess that night he thought Stossel's bullshit was just to far from reality not to be dealt with.

[Puregonzo1188]

28. I remember those Stossel videos!

We watched several of them in my 9th grade US Government class.

[FVZA_Colonel]

31. His opinions on the robber barons prove he is fucked up.

While it's understandable that he would think that, I just cannot imagine how they could be considered "good people."

[liberaldemocrat7]

8. The way I see it

conservatives make the excuse of not wanting the government to help the poor because they want people to give money on their own, and then of course they don't give much to charity because they never really wanted government to help the poor and neither did they.

[sandnsea]

9. Churches

They give to their church which isn't exactly the same thing as giving that benefits actual people or even generosity as many church-goers tithe out of duty, not generosity. I'm guessing he's using tax returns to make that claim and the charitable deduction doesn't differentiate between churches and other nonprofits. Your link doesn't go to Stossel's page, by the way.

[namvet73]

14. Bad link to Stossel's page

Sorry about that. I did a cutNpaste. www.abcnews.com will do it

[HereSince1628]

16. That was a suspicion of mine, and parochial schools, too.

The big event in many protestant services is "the collection."

[AnneD]

18. Anyone that has waited tables...

esp. the Sunday morning shift (which covers breakfast and lunch)will be the first to tell you that the Church crowd are the sorriest tippers on Earth. They must think folks do that work as a mission or because God told you to. Some of these folks just are conservative in politics, they are Conservative in spirit and Conservative with money. They give Christ a bad name. If there was every a person with a generous spirit, it was Jesus. If they truly tithed their 10%, what a difference it would make. I tithe 10%+, not for favour but because tithing makes me a better person inside. I don't think that my observations are all that scientific, but they are what I have observed, and you know they by their fruits.

[kysrsoze]

34. I'll say "Amen" to that. Rednecks, conservative churchgoers, etc. are CHEAP bastards

Absolutely selfish. I used to hate waiting on those people. The biggest tippers are smokers and bikers.

[AnneD]

53. I loved to wait on

dating couples, smokers, bikers, most drinkers, gamblers, DEM politicians, union folk, (all good tippers)and even though they didn't tip much-little old widows or little old couples. I didn't mind a Mom with kids that tried to help clean up the messes.

I mentioned the tipping thing to my Sunday School class two weeks ago and they were shocked until another lady (that had waited tables )chimed in with me. She said it taught her such a powerful lesson that she tips all the time when she feels she needs to-even in a drive thru!

You could always tell those Christians that walked the walk on Sundays-they were the nicest most polite customers I had and they tipped generously. Those are the mature Christians I try to emulate in my life.

[Megahurtz]

58. I think that 10% tithing should be given directly to people in need,

not to the Church Corporation.

Now there's some real tithing!

[Red Zelda]

11. Stossel is pigshit

There are so many poor people who give to charity despite their own lack of wealth.
Meanwhile, the rich can go fuck themselves.

[underpants]

Gee how did I know that Stossel would put a bias on this story

I saw an ad for it and new that there had to be some bullshit contrived slant on this. There you go.


No one with our point of view would be given an hour on network TV every week like that useless hump is.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. If true, it's because they've broken the backs of the average worker.

But then, who believes this clown anyway?

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Stossel Needs To Deduct Money Given To One's Own Church

That counts as charity, but these people aren't giving to others. They're giving that money to the church for their own personal benefit. That might fit the legal definition of charitable donations, but it's hardly the same as giving to a charity from which one derives no direct benefit.
The Professor

[Toots]

15. Only if it means they pay less in taxes

If the IRS had nothing to do with it they would not give one red cent..

[loyalsister]

44. That's right

It's nothing but a self congratulatory tax credit

[YOY]

19. YOY Claims Stossel is so full of shit he is sure his mother birthed him through her anus

n/t

[robertpaulsen]

40. Can I steal that insult to use against my enemies?

That one's fucking brilliant!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[NuttyFluffers]

47. be sure to use it as a blind quote, too

some important people say...

:rofl:

[YOY]

51. be my guest

I don't recall ifI heard it somewhere long ago or made it up in case the plagarism demons attack.

[zbdent]

20. Did he go into the actual details of the "types" of charities?

Like, maybe the libs give $$$ to charities that actually do things for people, while the cons (oops, conservatives) give to "charities" that "pray for you" and are fronts for Right-Wing PACs?

[Corgigal]

21. I don't give a red dime to a church

but my family is sponsoring a mother and her 3 kids for Christmas. I can't take this off my taxes so in ABC news world, it doesn't exist. It will exist on Christmas morning for those 3 kids though.
That is what is important.

[montieg]

22. I researched his "expert" and found the data

he uses- and found that this "expert" is doing his own take on some, in my opinion, questionable data. quote from the "expert", 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.

[Captain Hilts]

23. Result: Residents of states with higher state taxes give less. nt

[Kingshakabobo]

27. Interesting. You wouldn't have a link? Would you?

[Captain Hilts]

29. I saw the map O'Reilly showed. It's high state tax states.

Yes, I was watching O'Reilly. I was hoping to be able to tough it out to see Barney Frank, but couldn't.

[Kingshakabobo]

46. So, in other words -no? nt

[Armstead]

25. Well, I can call myself "spiritual" and be lumped in with the fundys

From what little I could stomach of that show last night, it appears that most of the "research" is highly subjective and oopen to interpretation.

I'm a left-leaning agnostic in a blue state, for example. But I also consider myself to have spiritual beliefs and I live in a rural area.

Therefore, if I were to tell them that I am a "spiritual" person, and that I delivered food baskets at Thanksgiving, I technically could be used as evidence to prove their inane theory.

[Kingshakabobo]

26. I'll never be able to watch that jag-off again without thinking of this video:

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

[kysrsoze]

36. You know, I initially felt sorry for him. Now I almost wish he'd gotten 10 more slaps

[FVZA_Colonel]

30. So I guess this means he considers charitable giving a good thing.

Given his very nature, it's a bit surprising, considering how unabashedly selfish he has shown himself to be time and time again.

[Skinner]

32. A few problems with Stossel's analysis.

First of all, let me say that I'm not going to automatically dismiss the idea that conservatives give more than liberals. But as far as I can tell, Stossel does not provide the evidence to back up his claim. Here's what I could find about his claim, along with my response:

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?

(snip)

So how did our little test turn out? Tune into a special edition of "20/20," "Cheap in America," to find out.

This one is easy. Unfortunately, Stossel doesn't tell us the result of the test -- but it's obvious what the answer will be. The Salvation Army is well known for discriminating against gays and lesbians. For this reason, many liberals (myself included) refuse to donate to the Salvation Army.

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.

I don't doubt that his statistics are correct. But the fact that red states donate a higher percentage of their income than blue states does not by itself prove that conservatives are donating a higher percentage of their income than liberals. To prove his case, Stossel needs to look at individual people rather than states. Consider the following facts:

- Blue states are generally more liberal than red states.

- Blue states are generally wealthier per-capita than red states.

- Wealthier individuals give a lower percentage of their income to charity than less-affluent individuals. (ie: relatively speaking, the wealthy are less generous) Stossel's article even agrees.

The above facts would all support Stossel's argument. But consider the following:

- Wealthier individuals generally vote Republican (ie: conservative). Less affluent individuals generally vote Democratic (ie: liberal).

- The wealthier people get, the more Republican they vote. The very, very rich would be even more conservative.

WAIT A MINUTE?!?! I thought Stossel said conservatives were more generous! But the facts show that the wealthy are 1. less generous, and 2. vote conservative!

So, what's the truth? As far as I can tell, we don't actually know. If Stossel compared the charitable giving patterns of people and compared them with their political persuasion (controlling for income level), then we would know the answer for certain. If Stossel did that, I am not aware of it.

So, how do we interpret the red v. blue data?

I think it can be interpreted a few different ways. One way is to simply conclude conservatives are more generous, as Stossel did.

Another way to interpret this is more complicated, but bear with me: There are a whole lot of affluent conservatives who live in blue states. In fact, I would not be surprised if *most* wealthy conservatives lived in blue states -- because blue states are where the most wealthy people live. (Blue states would also be where most wealthy liberals live.) What if liberals donated more to charity than conservatives, but in the blue states liberals see their generosity statistically watered down by super-rich conservative tightwads? Remember: The super-rich are disproportionately conservative and they tend to live in blue states.

To be clear: I'm not saying this is The Truth. I am only suggesting that the red state/blue state thing may not prove what Stossel says it does.

And, a reality check

I suspect Stossel is correct, even though he has not proven it. His article includes this nugget:

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."

I suspect this is true. The very large number of religious people in this country could well be tipping the scales in favor of conservatives when it comes to charitable giving. But here again, we don't know for certain. I'd be curious to see the donation patterns of religious conservatives vs. religious liberals is.

So, bottom line:

I don't think we can declare a winner on this until someone does a study that controls for variables like income. (I would suggest controlling for religiosity too, but that seems like it would unfairly take away conservatives' biggest advantage.)

If anyone here knows statistics, feel free to set me straight. This is well outside my areas of expertise.

BTW: From personal experience, I can say for sure that there are a lot of generous liberals in the world. Because I depend on your generosity to help pay my salary. :D

[FVZA_Colonel]

33. That's very interesting.

I was wondering, did you examine this (http://blueworksbetter.com/CharitableGiving) as well? I'm asuming so, but just in case, I'd recomend it.

[montieg]

38. The data he uses is suspect at best--

because it is SELF-REPORTED data. In other words, the survey ASKS people what they did--not measure their behavior. Statistically, this is looked at askance by true statisticians. You can see the "expert" Stosshole uses here:

http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks_print.html

[NewJeffCT]

42. See Post #2 above

and, I had a LTTE published on the same subject a year or two back, so I know MannyGoldstein's data is correct, which is from a Boston College study

[montieg]

45. The guy he had on ABC morning on Wednesday that I saw was named

Arthur Brooks at the link I posted, not Goldstein. I must have missed his section.

[NewJeffCT]

48. No - the poster above is named MannyGoldstein

He posted the stuff debunking conservatives being generous.

[Sapphire Blue]

37. Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous; Fr. Stanley & Fr. Henriot say...

(NOTE: there are 3 articles in this post)

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy
Religion News Service

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

(snip)

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Continued @ http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

SOCIAL JUSTICE vs. CHARITY
THROUGH OUR FINGERS
Ronald Stanley, O.P.

"Two men were fishing in a river. Late in the afternoon they started cooking some of the fish they had caught. Suddenly they heard the cries of a man being swept down the river. Immediately the men jumped into the river, swam out to the man, and were gradually able to pull him ashore. As they were on shore catching their breath, they heard the cries of a woman being swept down the river. They jumped back into the water, made their way out to the woman, and slowly brought her to shore. They were exhausted but happy to have saved both people. Then they heard to cries of a child being swept downstream. One of the men started back into the water to get the child; the other held back. "Aren't you going to save the child?" asked the first. "You go get the child," responded the second, "I'm going to go upstream to find out why so many people are falling into the river."

Charity is happy to spend all day pulling victims out of the river. Social justice asks: why are so many people falling into the river? Is there a pathway or a bridge in need of repair? Is there someone throwing people into the river? When there is a pattern of people repeatedly falling victim, social justice seeks to discover and remedy the root causes of the problem.

Charity does the important work of meeting the immediate needs of suffering people, for food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. Most everyone today approves and praises charity.

Social justice, on the other hand, dares to ask troubling questions: if the earth's resources are meant to meet the needs of all the earth's children, why are 20% of the world's population consuming over 80% of the earth's resources, leaving 80% of the world living in misery? Isn't it only just that the privilege few live more simply, so that the masses might simply live?

(snip)

Our politicians smooth the pathways and bridges of the privileged, to the neglect of the poor. Little wonder then that so many of the poor keep falling into the river. Their falling is not simply an accident. They are not "falling through the cracks." They are falling through our fingers.

Continued @ http://www.ramapo.edu/studentlife/ministry/catholic_Ministry/Articles/social_justice.htm

Gospel requires justice not charity, says Jesuit writer
-10/05/06

An expert on Christian social action, Fr Peter Henriot, is currently on a tour of Australia for a series of talks and workshops on the relevance of social justice in today's age of globalisation and terror, reports the Uniya Jesuit Social Justice Unit.

Co-author of a Catholic best-seller on the ‘pastoral cycle’ (see-analyse-act), Henriot will be teaming up with Jesuit lawyer Fr Frank Brennan in Sydney later this week. The book, originally published in the 1980s, is called Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice.

Fr Henriot, has lived for nearly 20 years in Zambia - one of the poorest countries in the world. He argues that to respond effectively to social issues, Christians and people of good will need to move from a model of charity to a model of justice at the core of their living and acting.

“We will never deal with the impact of globalisation on poor countries in Africa if we don't do good social analysis that reveals both the systemic problems and the structural hopes,” he declares.

Continued @ http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060510social.shtml

[Nicole]

39. Maybe Liberals give less because they expect the govt. to take care of it's people?

Isn't that what we pay taxes for?

I'd rather pay taxes to fund programs to help the needy instead of depending on charity to do it.

[sendero]

43. Yeah..

.... after they steal $1000, they give $10 to charity.

[Nick Fallon]

49. Anyone remember the David Schultz incident?

The WWE wrestler who slapped Stossel's taste out of the mouth after he asked if wrestling was fake. We need more people like Schultz.

[gorbal]

50. What does he count as "Charitable"

For Example: Does he include groups that work with conservative religious groups while excluding groups like "American Friends Service Committee" because they are "Political". Most of the groups I give to have a political bent...keep that in mind.

[PVnRT]

52. Stossel is a mouthpiece of the right

He pretty much always has been, he's just gotten louder about it the past few years.

[nam78_two]

54. Why is that faker still around???

:grr:
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-fair-response.html
ugh...John Stossel...:puke:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Conservatives do it for the tax write off.

Only reason.

[athena]

56. Stossel's little experiment is flawed.

1. He doesn't have enough statistics. As anyone who has taken a course in statistics will point out, one can't make a generalization about blue states and red states based on just two small samples. A serious study would have to be conducted in many randomly selected cities across the country, over a period of time.
   
2. He is assuming that everyone in San Francisco is liberal and everyone in Sioux Falls is conservative. How does he know that those who donated in Sioux Falls were not mostly liberal?
   
3. Even if we overlook the above flaws, Stossel's "experiment" merely shows that those in blue states give less to Salvation Army volunteers standing in front of shopping malls. I, myself, never give to those people; frankly, I find them annoying. I donate to United Way, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and The Nation, as well as to my alma mater. I donate a lot for my income level, and yet, Stossel would call me uncharitable. Furthermore, since I don't itemize my deductions on my tax returns, I appear to be giving nothing to charity. Even if I itemized, most of what I donate would not be considered charity for tax purposes.
   
4. There is nothing wrong with thinking that taxes are a better way to help one's community than charity. The government is positioned to distribute funds in the best way. Giving to charity will not ensure that roads are paved, public schools renovated, and levees maintained. Have these people considered looking into the rates of tax evasion among conservatives and liberals?
   

As for the study Stossel quotes, note that he only quotes one person. Others here have pointed out a few flaws in that analysis, and it's far from clear that what was done was a blind study.

[Megahurtz]

57. The only reasons Republicans EVER give to Charities

is so they can get a write-off on their taxes. Their motivation is always selfish.
I have yet to see a generous Republican ever.

And yes, we should have a more Socialistic Government. "Charities" can be pretty crooked anyway. Why do we have rampant poverty if we have so many "Charities"?
Oh that's right, they're "Non-Profit"!:rofl:

Charities Schmarities I say!