Conservatives statistically give a LOT more to charity

[cushla_machree]

I hear this a lot. Usually it preceeds a rant on how liberals think the government can solve all of our problems.

I hate that knee jerk response, that just because liberals think that the government, CAN serve as a tool of betterment for the people, we think that the gov. should be controling everything. Its so stupid to me, because Conservatives use goverment to enrich their own lives off the backs of everyone else ALL THE TIME.

So do Conservatives really give more to charity? Are they just assuming all rich persons are conservatives? Are they just factoring dollar amounts, or are we factoring in as a percentage of ones income, and how about time spent volunteering. Its quite easy to write a check, it takes a lot more to get your hands dirty.

I read RFK JRs book on crimes against nature. And he really hit the nail on the head, how conservatives use government to enrich themselves and leave the rest of us in the dust. Industry polluting and passing the buck to the public is a good one.

This Iraq war, instead of trying to help the Iraqi's, all the money and jobs went to friends of the administration. Cutting public programs that are for everyone to fund tax cuts to the rich is one of my favs. Any other ideas?

[GodlessBiker]

1. Conservatives think Buffet is a liberal. If he is, liberals give a lot ..

of money to charity.

[ThomCat]

2. None of the conservatives I know give a dime.

They spend too much time complaining about how people choose to be poor and dependent. They can't give money to help people while at the same time complaining about how people don't deserve help.

If there is a study I predict self-serving deductions skew the results. Like Barbara Bush donating money in a way that benefits her son's business.

[KingFlorez]

3. They only give so they can say they've done something

[Pirate Smile]

14. Tax deductions.

Cheney's shady charitable contributions net $2 million refund

by clammyc
Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:54:45 AM PDT

Last week, Darth Cheney released his 2005 tax return, and while this type of thing doesn't generally make waves in the news unless it is a Democrat who is releasing the return, there was something that jumped out at me which prompted me to do a bit of digging, where I found this snippet that led me to do a bit more digging.

Being the tax geek that I am, I noticed something that caught my eye as, shall we say, "interesting" - charitable contributions in excess of $6,800,000 on income of just under $9,000,000. For those who are not familiar with tax rules, let's just say that this is a very high, an unusually high number.

While this is not illegal, by exploiting a loophole in the Katrina tax relief laws passed regarding charitable donations, Dead Eye Dick was able to obtain a refund of at least $1,000,000 -MORE than he would be able to get in any other year.

The best part? None of the charities were Katrina related at all.

-snip-
Barbara Bush directed her donations to her son Neil's company, which she was an investor in.

-snip-

So, to bring this all back and to summarize, we have this:

- By exploiting a law that was meant for people to donate to Katrina relief, Cheney was able to net a $2,000,000 tax refund.
- At least half, if not more if this refund was solely due to their exploiting of this law.
- In order to do this, they had to write a personal check for over $2,000,000 at the end of 2005.
- None of the donations were to any Katrina relief organizations.
- The donations were from income related to Halliburton, which Cheney supposedly had no financial ties to.
- In any other year, they still would have received a few hundred thousand in tax refunds from this "non-financial tie" to Halliburton, if they donated the proceeds to charity.
- In each of the prior three years, their donations were never more than 4%-5% of their 2005 totals, the only year that this law applies to.
- Once again, they flat out lie in their press release by obscuring the million or so that they personally benefited from this transaction.
- The timing, while not illegal, is extremely self serving and shady, especially in light of the fact that they should not be benefiting financially from any ties to Halliburton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/18/115445/192

[KingFlorez]

18. How could I forget tax deductions?

That is their biggest reason

[Dr Fate]

4. Poor people, regardless of politics give more in proportion. n/t

n/t

[mntleo2]

5. A Statistic I saw...

New Hampshire the richest per capita state gives LESS than Mississippi the poorest per capita state to charity. I wish I could give you a link but, I work for Welfare Rights and it is a given the rich are the stingiest people around. They think they are SO wonderful when they give 5% to charity ~ and that is making sure it is for a tax break for their billions, mind you. 5% of millions is nothing. 5% for a low income person is a lot.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[Atman]

8. New Hampshire is NOT the richest state.

That would be Connecticut. New Hampshire is #7 according to the last census.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Take A Look At Those Same Stats. . .

. . .when you take away the charitable giving by people who are donating to the church, THEY GO TO! (I kind of think that's sort of like donating to your own favorite pasttime, or something like that.)

The numbers change quite dramatically when donation to one's own church are taken away.
The Professor

[laundry_queen]

22. Exactly.

And yes, I've met many who think their tithe all goes to 'charity'. :eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Yeah, And That Charity Cash. . .

. . .ends up as the new hymnals THEY use, and the upholstery on the pews THEY sit in, and the Sunday school THEIR kids attend, and the air conditioned church THEY attend on Sunday, and the Gospel gathering THEIR choir goes to each summer. . . . . . .

Yeah, that's really charity when you personally benefit from those same dollars.
The Professor

[Arugula Latte]

6. They waste a lot of money giving to churches.

It's money down the drain to support silly dogma, organized superstition and mind control.

[Cleita]

7. They have more money to give than the average liberal and they

do it for the tax breaks. Often the charities given to are foundations that hire many of their peers. They keep the money in the family that way. Conservatives believe charities should take care of those who have fallen on bad times and through the cracks, so they give and make sure they get it back in tax breaks. Sweet deal isn't it? That way there is no guilt when someone dies without medicine that could have saved them or a homeless women digs through the trash for food.

Fifty years after I started working and tried to help out with every call for donations for the needy, we still have the needy. As a matter-of-fact it's gotten worse because we now have homeless needy as well as the usual needy.

It seems that if charity alone was a workable solution to the problems of the world we wouldn't have needy fifty years later. There are tons of charities out there and I'm sure many benefit from whatever money trickles down from their administrative costs, however it isn't enough. We need a social democracy that takes care of everyone who needs help. Charity can function for less dire needs that government wouldn't cover.

[Hamlette]

9. no

there was a "study" reported recently that showed Dems gave more to Katrina victims and over a longer period of time. The only reason it was reported was because allegedly it showed Dems were racist so it was okay to report it.

Even in the red states, it counts money to churches. Not even a majority of which goes to charity.

If the republicans want to count that money, fine. Open up church books to show us how much goes to the poor. Don't wanna do that? Fine, don't count it.

[RedStateShame]

10. They also cause the most need for charities

[Hugin]

12. Bravo!

Best. Answer. Yet!

[tonkatoy57]

11. They do give more...and a caveat.

As a former Development officer at a non-profit I would see the annual graphs and polls and pie charts breaking down charitable giving. This is what I remember seeing and taking away from that information.

In total charitable giving, contributions to churches and other religious organizations was counted as a portion of total.

Statistically speaking, people who identify as being "religious" or an "Evangelical" are more likely to lean to the conservative side politically.

So there you have it. It's probably not incorrect to say that self identified conservatives give more than others with different political self identification.

As another poster noted, people with lower incomes give a much higher percentage or their income to charity than those farther up the earnings ladder. That's what always struck me when I looked at the information each year.

[LeftHander]

13. Tax cuts main motivation....for many...nt

[Crankie Avalon]

15. How exactly would one even come up with that statistic? Seriously...

...I give modest amounts to each of a lot of charities and not a one of them asks for my political affiliation for their records. Where does such data even exist to compile? In the same place most rightwing "statistics" come from, I'd wager--straight out of their asses.

And for what it's worth, in my own anecdotal experience, rightwingers give very little--they actually have contempt for charities.

[cushla_machree]

19. WHo knows

The are prolly doing like a red state vs blue state, or that wealthy people tend to donate more $ amounts, ignoring that they do it for tax breaks and that its not a large percentage of their income.

[ItNerd4life]

17. I think they do, but to churches, not the less fortunate

They give alot of money to churches which keeps the church running and spreads the faith. However, when it comes to other types of charities, I think they give a lot less.

[fishwax]

20. one of the "studies" that i've heard used to support this

is a comparison of each state's ranking in per capita income with their ranking in per capita giving. This study used to come out every year and be big news on "religious" radio (such as Wildmon's American Family Radio, which I used to listen to fairly regularly) because it supposedly proved that the "bible belt" was generous, while the "godless" northeast and "heathen" California were stingy and selfish. I even saw the report in the mainstream press on one or two years.

The methodology was totally bogus, and obviously favors the poorest states (unlike ranking them purely by percentage of income donated to charity). A state like Mississippi, with the lowest per capita income, might be, say 30th on the giving list, giving them a "charity differential" (or whatever they called it) of +20, putting them first on the list by far. But that doesn't mean that they gave significantly more, percentage wise, than any other state. And indeed, one year when I compared the raw data of percentage of income donated, it turned out to be roughly in the high 30s.

Anyway, that's the primary justification I've seen given, and I don't buy it at all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. If you consider Pat Robertson, Dobson and Falwell "charities", they do.

[itzamirakul]

23. Since Conservatives reputedly give a lot more to charity, that

must be the reason that PBS has had to run more fundraising campaigns than ever before and even been forced to add commercials for their corporate sponsors. Yeah, all this because Bushco wanted to change PBS into a rw organ. Putting Conservatives on the board of Directors was just the beginning. Forcing the cancellation of shows like Bill Moyers and softening shows like Frontline are part of the plan to eliminate the liberal voice everywhere.

But they are getting SO MANY PLEDGES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT from the rw that they have been forced to bring Bill Moyers back in a special series and then tag a plea for financial support on to his show. And Moyers is such a wonderful man that he has come back to help.

[leftyladyfrommo]

24. Could it be because they are millionaires?

I would give a lot more if I was a millionaire.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Unfortunately, most stats on this include 'church giving' in with

charitable contributions. I, don't think giving to one's church for missionary work is the same as donating to a specific cause.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

27. Some of their charitable giving is prescribed by their tax accountants, ie

they need to get down into a lower tax bracket.

You know, if they've maxed out and run out of things like their own pension plans and other ways that they get the tax shelter money back.

[jmowreader]

28. Conservatives give to charity for three specific reasons

Reason 1: tax incentives
Reason 2: ego inflation
Reason 3: personal benefit

There's a fourth reason--to attempt to change the course of an organization. This usually doesn't work.

Reason 1 we all know about.

Reason 2 will take some explaining. This one's related to naming rights. If someone wants to immortalize his name, he gives a pile of money to an organization he likes and they name their building after him. I worked on a fundraising brochure for the UNC School of Law in Chapel Hill, NC, when they were building a new facility to teach the law in. If you gave x amount--IIRC it was a couple million--you got the whole building. For x2 amount--a quarter-million, I think--they'd name a classroom after you, and there were a number of opportunities there. Half a million would get you the auditorium. Two hundred thousand would get you a hallway, and once again there were several of these available. A staircase went for $75,000. The front door was $25,000. (They didn't sell naming rights to the back door or the restrooms.) And it went all the way down to $250 for a brick in the border of the sidewalk leading up to the school. By the time they were done selling naming rights--and they sold everything they tried to, almost all to people who earned their law degrees from UNC--the building was completely paid for before they broke ground. Not too shabby...but I really don't think they would have been able to do it without selling naming rights.

Reason 3 is even better. At a lot of universities, if you want season sports tickets you must endow an athletic scholarship. Lots of charities have fundraising parties or fundraising balls--donate $500 or whatever, get a ticket.

Liberals give to charity for all those reasons plus one more: it's the right thing to do. Witness Katrina relief. Witness East Timor relief. Those efforts were heavily subscribed by liberals and lightly--if at all--subscribed by conservatives.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. I don't think there is really any way to know

I know generous conservatives and tight liberals, and vice-versa. I personally don't think political viewpoint has much to do with generosity.

[lpbk2713]

30. Charitable donations go against everything they stand for.

Their position always has been and always will be "I worked hard for what I've got and I suggest you do the same" even though they were born on third base.

They're so tight their asshole squeaks.