McLaughlin: Conservative states give more to charity than Liberals...

[itzamirakul]

On McLaughlin's show this morning, he provided a list of the states who donated the most to charity. Top three states were all conservative.........

I think they figure this out by the salaries of individuals and the percentage that they give.......?????????

Isn't that an unfair way to measure? There are fewer people in those states than in the mostly coastal liberal states.? Damn, I don't know what I am trying to say here, except that I got the feeling that the result was based on an unfair means of measuring.

Besides, MANY of those folks down there are on public assistance, so how CAN they give more?

(Mathematical logic was my very WORST subject all through school)

[Clark2008]

1. "Many" are not on public assistance

But there is a great chasm between the rich and the poor.

[itzamirakul]

17. Just recently I read about the large number of

people in the more conservative states who are in a position of having to receive public assisstance. I am in no way stating this fact negatively, because I realize that the economy and lack of jobs contributes greatly to the welfare problem. But with less income, how CAN they give so much more to charity and still manage to pay bills and feed their children? It seems like an oxymoron. Or is it a paradox? Impossible, but true?

In my "fuzzy" way of thinking it just seems that if there are far fewer people in those states, with far lower incomes, isn't it unfair to compare that fewer number of people to a much larger number of people whose incomes may be higher and then come out and say that the fewer number is more generous?

I think this is just another way for the conservatives to bash the libs by using an unfair means of making comparisons.

[papau]

19. Refuse to pay taxes for welfare -get credit for giving 50% back as charity

I suspect the net-net is poor education, getting handouts from blue states, and a lower total tax plus charity giving oer person than in the Blue States.

But McLaughlin's show never reports these facts - even though they know these facts.

Maybe the media - including the talking heads and pundits - are biased against the poor -

but then the GOP folks like pr that says they give more than others, as they cut social services, don't they?

[charlie]

2. Donating to Falwell and Robertson

will get you on that list, which is drawn from IRS deductions.

I've never reported a charity donation on a tax form in my life.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. LOL...conservatives take more tax deductions from their charitable work

[charlie]

13. I'm having no luck finding it right now

but a month back, when this red-state generosity meme was bouncing around the net, I found and posted an URL to Falwell's ministries that had a roster of charity plans you could sign on to. Every one of them was an evade-the-spirit-of-the-law tax shelter. Most of them were ways to make a sizeable "donation" of property or funds to Falwell today and enjoy a lifelong stipend from INVESTMENT at reduced or no rates of taxation. Fucking gutter snipes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. For all you know they scrubbed it or moved it

[charlie]

15. Ack, this is annoying

I'd really like everyone to see it again. It was the most cynical, despicable thing, swaddled in the sunny cheer of Doing the Lord's Work.

Anyhoo, here's the source for this rash of inflated conservative smugness:

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/2004_us_notes.php
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/faq.html

[marcologico]

3. very fuzzy math, but didn't Buchanan let the air out of that baloon

by pointing out it included contributions to churches?

[Vickers]

4. It might not have been the conservatives in those states that gave, though

Could've been the liberals. See even "conservative states" have a whole shitload of liberals living there, so the "analysis" is not really valid.

But, you know, I'm not a journalist or anything... :eyes:

[BrainRants]

12. VERY valid point! n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Gee....that's odd...what charities? Religious ones? Save the zygots?

Anymore thanks to all the RW charities that are nothing more than political arms such as anti-abortion groups, that word "charity" is a bit meaningless.

[Benhurst]

7. What percentage of these contributions go to their

looney tunes churches, spreading hate and supporting the Bush Crime Family?

[Guns Aximbo]

8. so what... and tax credit

They may be feeling guilty or something. Besides, there's a tax credit now this is anouther dodge for them.

[OrwellwasRight]

9. The point he was making is that lower income folks give a higher

percentage of their income to charity than upper income people. The stat had little to do with red v. blue because, as another poster pointed out, the breakdown did not show who within the state gave more or less.

I would also imagine that the stat is compiled from more than just IRS forms because, given that Mississippi is the state with the lowest per capita income, very few people (relatively) would file a 1040 and actually itemize their charitable giving, so it would not be a good measure.

I actually think we can turn the stat around to our advantage and go populist with it: it proves that the wealthy are more stingy, less generous, more self-centered (however you want to term it) than the non-wealthy.

Get that message out there and then ask people to look behind the Republican economic proposals. All those Texans who joined the campaign to abolish the Estate Tax are going to be in for a big surprise.

[Divernan]

10. I'd love to see the numbers on $$ donated to tsunami victims.

The dems I know have donated generously for tsunami victims to Save the Children and the Red Cross. I sent out a blanket request to about 50 people on my email list, which includes about 10 neocons/conservatives. I pointed out that a contribution to help these victims would get their new year off to a "compassionate" start. Some of the dems replied with info about who they had already or were in the process of donating to. No response from the Republicans. One young environmentalist I am proud to call my son had already donated
$1,000 and that is about 3% of his annual income. In my age group, most of the guys I know are conservatives and very loud in their support of Bush - and not a single one of them contributes either his time or his money - except to their churches. And they seem to raise their kids to consider greed as one of the seven virtues. Racism is another "virtue" to this gang.

[BOSSHOG]

11. 39% of all charitable giving in 2003

went to "Religion." In other words, the red state lemmings are providing housing and food and a job to people who tell them what to think and how to vote, all in the name of charity. McLaughlin thinks this is good for America. McLaughlin, being the typical conservative, has no concept of constitutional liberties or what true charitable contributions are used for. Red states also lead in the categories of divorce, incest, teen pregnancy and they also receive more federal dollars then they give all the while bitching about tax and spend liberals. It truly sucks to be a conservative in 21st century America. That is the genesis of the aggression. They know they are ignorant and incorrect on most political issues but are too damned proud to admit it - THEIR IGNORANCE BEGATS THEIR ARROGANCE, and it starts in the white house. That's my rant for the day.

[Hugin]

16. The last statistics I heard...

Claimed the blue states taxes by and large supported the red states...

I guess there's some solace in knowing at least your money is going to
a good cause.

People are always freer with money which isn't their own.

[AirAmFan]

18. There are many measurment problems. For instance, do the high Southern

totals include "contributions" to church events that mainly provide food, entertainment, and other consumption to the "contributors"? You would want a measure of "contributions" to exclude any consumption by the givers.

I'd want to see a breakout of state-by-state contributions for purely religious purposes. In the figures cited, donations to pay for medical research are being mixed in with donations to provide big cars, first-class airfare, and luxury hotel suites for Jerry Falwell and his ilk. Since a much greater percentage in the South are regular church attenders, putting Mississippi "contributions" alongside those of New York may be an onions and apples comparison.

[elehhhhna]

20. A0 They lie B) Texas for example is a BIG state C)The REAL SCAM:

You pay your kids expensive private church school tuition but call it a tithe! Voila! Full tax deduction with church generated documentation.

[pretzel4gore]

21. mcglaughlin's a slut...he may not adore geeb

(geebush, or geeb is brother of john ellis or 'jeb') but he's still a nazipoo liar who's been telling whoppers (he calls em 'whoppersnappers' as if little lies aren't lies) since hitler was the great whiteous hope....or was that franco? uncle joe? samoza! papa doc duvalier? goldwater?

[marcologico]

24. LMAO n/t

[Stepup2]

22. The demographics of the population

of those states maybe more telling that this isolated statistic.

It is possible that the donations were to faith based organizations with thinly veiled political aspirations for the dollars solicited.

[IronLionZion]

23. conservative states are like third-world countries

they have very rich people and very poor people.

If McLaughlin didn't provide his logic then screw him.

[Machiavelli05]

26. Not quite

its more rural vs urban.

All rural areas have a huge gap between rich and poor

All urban areas have a huge distinction between rich and poor, but there is a significant middle class. This is true in all states - not just "Conservative" states.

A red state is only different from a blue state, sometimes by a couple percentage points.

[Machiavelli05]

25. Gifts to churchs are part of it

I would assume that they figure out what states give the most by taking the total amount and dividing it by the total population and comparing the averages.

Down South many MANY more people give money to their churches, more than they can afford frequently.

[delete_bush]

28. Actually, they use a rather odd methodology.

Each state receives a "Generosity" rank determined by taking each state's Average Adjusted Gross Income (AAGI) and Average Itemized Charitable Contribution (AICD or AICC), then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single plus or minus number for each state indicating the favorable or unfavorable gap separating

One problem with this is that the "Having" rank is all-inclusive in that it uses total state AGI divided by total returns filed, but the "Giving" rank is determined by using only those returns claiming a charitable item deduction, divided by the number of returns claiming said dedution. Mississippi, which ranks firstin "Generosity", is dead last in "Having" but is fifth in "Giving" due in part to the fact that only 20% of the returns filed claim a charitable deduction, compared with 40% for Connecticut, which ranks 1st in "Having" but 44th in "Generosity".

If you rank the states according to average contribution per return filed, Utah comes in first, followed by Maryland, New York, Georgia, Connecticut, New Jersey, and California. Mississippi ranks 29th using this method.

[Machiavelli05]

31. Very interesting!

Not that I doubt you.. but how do you know all this?

[delete_bush]

34. I checked out the website referred to in Post 15 above,

also downloaded the Excel file with supporting data. I'm not sure if this organization has an agenda, but the methodology produces a rather skewed picture IMO.

With the data they have to work with, they could have produced other stats, just as I did. Makes one wonder.

[Machiavelli05]

35. excellent, thanks for your help

I actually am very interested in this disparity. Dont have time right now - but will look at that site. Got your PM too, will reply to that when I get a chance.

[snippy]

33. That methodology is not "rather odd" it is "fatally flawed." n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Two things:

most of the money given in those "red states" is given to churches, especially churches that require a tithe, or 10% of salary. The LDS church in Utah is probably why Utah is often #1.

The other thing is that, yes, poor people are more generous. Study after study shows that they give far more as a percentage of their income, than the wealthy.

[leesa]

29. And we give more of our tax dollars to them.

Of course, they are talking about donations to Fundie churches, most likely, which to me is mostly a political donation.

[dolstein]

30. I'd like to see the percentage of AFTER TAX INCOME

Blue states in the northeast and industrial midwest tend to have higher tax burdens. It seems only fair to focus on the percentage of after tax income that the residents of red and blue states give.

[amazona]

32. well poor people give more proportionately

Is it by percentage? Poor people actually give more by percent of income. A lot of them tithe. Maybe it's easier to tithe when you make $20K a year than if you make $2 million a year because a rich person just couldn't sit there and watch $200K walk out the door.

And rich people don't really GIVE...they SELL. The "big" gifts come with strings attached, such as, my son will be accepted into this college, my name will put on this building etc.

When poor people give they GIVE and their gift is forgotten. Unless they make enough to have deductions on Schedule A, they don't even get anything off their taxes.

The only bad thing is, I think many of the poor people who tithe are being exploited by greedy churches and are really giving to causes that hurt them or that promote politicians that hurt their interests. We need better education so that people can give intelligently instead of out of a need to buy a place in heaven. I think evangelicals and Latter Day Saints really rob people with false hope of an afterlife if you just pay enough you will be one of the saved. At least in the Presbyterian Church we were taught that God was all-knowing from the beginning of time and already knew who was to be saved -- but maybe this was poor salesmanship, since you had no incentive to "buy" salvation!