George F. Will: Compassionate conservatives

[madmusic]

Has anyone fact-checked this?

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:

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/814645.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Here's the thing about chraitable giving. Conservatives think that

that is enough to help the needy. They also get off on the big morality points boost they get from "giving freely". Liberals know that charitable giving is not enough to care for all of the needy, not by a long shot. Which is why we work to make sure the government provides for them as is its job in the first place.

So on the face of it one might make a case for conservatives being more generous, the liberals are the ones who are working tirelessly to improve the system so that charitable giving isn't necessary in the first place.

[SharonAnn]

26. Conservatives give more money to churches. They consider that "charity"

Really.

A lot of the money that is counted as going to "charity" is actually going to churches. Some of that is funneled to charity. Some of it pays the pastor and church workers, some goes to overseas or domestic missions to get new members, some of it goes to build new buildings (buy new choir robes and hymnals, etc.).

I wouldn't include most of that as "charity".

[selador]

39. well, of course

by changing your definition of charity to suit your narrow agenda, you can 'prove away' data.

similarly, i can do the same thing with ANY datapoint in any argument

but that's intellectually dishonest.

these are voluntary givings to tax exempt charitable institutions

churches provide a service FREE OF CHARGE (well, with the exception of scientology), provide numerous community services, and operate under a non-profit structure

that is a definition of charity that you choose to ignore because you don't like the fact that conservatives happen to apparently give more to charities (and more volunteer time) than liberals

[Afje]

Conservatives confuse

charity with justice.

[bluestateguy]

2. I think there is a reason for this

Conservatives who give do so out of a feeling of charity, and goodwill. They may have the best of intentions, but they believe that the disadvantaged should be taken care of by way of private charity, which is dependent on the goodwill of everybody else.

Liberals believe that jobs, health care and food are basic human rights for anyone who plays by the rules, not handouts to come on the whims of the well to do. The idea of "charity" is insulting and degrading, and it belies the notion of these goods as rights.

[selador]

7. really?

"Liberals believe that jobs, health care and food are basic human rights for anyone who plays by the rules"

the latter two i believe are rights (a social safety net).

i certainly don't believe that a JOB is a human right.

so, i guess i am not a liberal by that definition. you have the RIGHT to a job? really?

who is REQUIRED to hire you then?

that makes no sense to me.

[ismnotwasm]

3. God.

So when was the last time Mr. Will volunteered at a food bank? A shelter? Who introduces legislation to help the poor, working and middle income folks? Last I checked, it wasn't conservatives.

Who shuts such legislation down? Who cuts programs for poor children? Last I checked it WAS conservatives.

Nope. Not charitable. They're too busy trying to control women's bodies, and talking about the "Gay agenda" or "Gay lifestyle". Like healthy sexual preference is any of their business.

They also like that trickle down theory for tax relief (no matter what they are calling it these days).

Playing with statistics is just that, playing a rather rotten game off the backs of the poor. Something conservatives excel at, and Mr Will is at the top of his game here.

[selador]

8. show me where he plays with statistics

if it is true that conservatives give more to charity, then so be it.

i don't see you presenting any evidence, just the bald assertion that he is playing with them

you are correct, that liberals tend to support more social programs by govt. but that isn't what is addressed here. you are also correct that conservatives are more likely to cut them. but again, that's not addressed here.

i don't believe in ad hominem. merely asserting that he must be playing with statistics because you don't like him and disagree with his assertions is intellectually dishonest at best.

furthermore, it's not WILL's statistics. it's arthur c brooks at syracuse.

do you automatically discount data that goes against your prejudices as to how you THINK things are? or do you dispassionately look at data, regardless of whether it goes against your preconceived notions?

hint: that's a rhetorical question. the answer is clear.

*if* conservatives give more personally to charity, then that's something we should address, not sweep under the table because it's an "uncomfortable truth"

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KG]

51. i think it's quite charitable that DU lets conservatives defend conservatives and consevatism on DU!

know whut i mean, vern? :hi:

[Echo In Light]

54. I'm guessing a Dungeon alias

[SharonAnn]

27. Remember that a lot of those "charitable" contributions go to churches.

[angstlessk]

41. Don't all the Repubs on the hill have a special charity of their own??

and get tons of money and use said charities for 'educational' purposes to take trips to places like San Maritz etc? and they hire on their kin to run them? I BET THEY GET LOADS OF UNACCOUNTED FOR CASH! Charity indeed!!

[Dollface]

4. If it is true, it is likely because conservatives have more money.

Probably from stealing from the people they donate to help.

[selador]

13. do you READ before you make these claims?

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

that clearly refutes your claim. is the standard modus operandi here to just kneejerk come up with any off the wall speculation when data comes across the computer that disputes one's prejudices?

fwiw, i would have ASSUMED that liberals give more to charity. it makes sense. but if data disputes my assumptions, it's intellectually dishonest (see: cognitive dissonance) to just blanket dispute something because you don't LIKE what it says.

that's like a creationist disputing the fossil record because they don't like what it means to their prejudices (that there can't be old dinosaur fossils).

same syndrome

[elizfeelinggreat]

16. and do you knee jerk much?

Liberals SUPPORT charitable ACTIONS. Interestingly they did not measure this therefore this study is simply meant to make wealthy people feel better that others suffer because they have blocked social programs designed to help them.

Conservatives support tax deductible CONTRIBUTIONS to their favorite private charities.


Willett is claiming that "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."

HA HA HA That's a lie. Religion may be the biggest predictor of the donations they make to religious charities but it is NOT predicting their altruism.

ALTRUISM means: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" It doesn't mean total money donated to charities.

This stupid study is measuring money, not unselfish regard.

edited to fix subject line

[selador]

21. no, i look at data not my prejudices

"Liberals SUPPORT charitable ACTIONS. Interestingly they did not measure this therefore this study is simply meant to make wealthy people feel better that others suffer because they have blocked social programs designed to help them. "

no, this study looks at HARD data. actual #'s. i can say *i* support ANYTHING. but this study actually looks at what people SPEND MONEY on to support which is a NONsubjective metric.

i can say i support X, Y, and Z. but without hard data as to what i actually DO to support it, it's a subjective metric and not nearly as clear as this data .

money speaks.

"Conservatives support tax deductible CONTRIBUTIONS to their favorite private charities. "

and charitable contributions are JUST as tax deductible if made by liberals.
so, point is irrelevant. the point is that liberals can target THEIR charitable giving to THEIR private charities. and they generally do. but they spend LESS on THEIR charities than conservatives do. THAT is the point.


"Willett is claiming that "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."

HA HA HA That's a lie. Religion may be the biggest predictor of the donations they make to religious charities but it is NOT predicting their altruism.

ALTRUISM means: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" It doesn't mean total money donated to charities.

This stupid study is measuring money, not unselfish regard. "

money is an objective metric. you can spout OPINION all you want, but that's subjective. the fact is that DESPITE their lower income levels, conservative gave MORE $$$ to charity than liberals.

you simply can't DEAL with that uncomfortable truth, nor do you dispute it with facts. i'd rather deal with an inconvenient and uncomfotable truth, than deny reality because it hurts my prejudices.
again, not ONE disputation of this data presented in the study: conservatitves give more to charity.

obfuscate all you want.

[elizfeelinggreat]

24. wrongo

Money does NOT equal charity . There's your fact without obfuscation.

This framing that you're participating in is all about who GETS TAX DEDUCTIONS, most especially RELIGIOUS donations. That's what Mr. Will has always been all about. He framed my family as a "conservative" one because our contributions came from a state that went for Bush. HA! Hard fact my butt.

Brooks (the author)himself points out that secular conservatives give LESS than secular liberals while religious conservatives gave more than religious liberals but religious people of ALL STRIPES give more than non-religious people.

Let's all call BS on Mr. Will (I edited here - wrong name), that greedy SOB, who knows damn well what charitable means.

Here is more from the man you are supporting as "factual" discussing that same book:

There are lots of strange facts about American charity. Here’s one that involves the differences between giving by the rich and poor: Americans with high incomes are more likely than poor folks to give directions to strangers on the street. In contrast, the poor are more likely to give a homeless person food or money. The practical implication of this is that, if you find yourself in a strange city and need directions, ask a rich person. If you need a sandwich, ask a poor person.


So Mr. Will and all of his kind and their tax deductible "contributions" can go CHENEY themselves. What a bunch of lies.

The only uncomfortable truth here is that you're clearly showing which side of the liberal/conservative equation you believe has more weight, i.e. $$$$ You probably also believe that people who work hard enough or are "deserving" have larger bank accounts.

[selador]

31. reading comprehension

"Money does NOT equal charity . There's your fact without obfuscation. "

money GIVEN to charities = charity.

there's your correction to your misstatement of my point


"This framing that you're participating in is all about who GETS TAX DEDUCTIONS, most especially RELIGIOUS donations. That's what Mr. Will has always been all about. He framed my family as a "conservative" one because our contributions came from a state that went for Bush. HA! Hard fact my butt."

no, he didn't. will didn't even create the study. he was REFERENCING the study. the study used a # of determinant factors. ONE of them was that the population of blue states ceteris paribus gave less to charities than the populations of red states. it doesn't follow, nor was it implied that all residents of a red state are red. duh.

"So Mr. Will and all of his kind and their tax deductible "contributions" can go CHENEY themselves. What a bunch of lies.

The only uncomfortable truth here is that you're clearly showing which side of the liberal/conservative equation you believe has more weight, i.e. $$$$ You probably also believe that people who work hard enough or are "deserving" have larger bank accounts. "

i'm not TALKING ABOUT WILL. WILL is just the messenger. the study wasn't conducted by Will. he's just referencing it. and of course HE would reference a study that places conservatives in a positive light because he's a conservative. i listen to BOTH kinds of pundits (liberal and conservatives) because i know that each will selectively parse and mention and spin stuff that looks best for each side.

that's how partisanship works.

the uncomfortable truth is that you failed to provide one shred of conflicting data as to the studies conclusion - that conservatives, ceteris paribus (iow as related to income or in gross) give more $$$ to charity.

note also that the study showed two other things

1) conservatives donate more TIME to charity
2) poor people give a greater %age of their income to charity than the middle or upper class.

[elizfeelinggreat]

34. are you joking?

Worship your manna in peace. There is no evidence that your conclusions are true.

" the uncomfortable truth is that you failed to provide one shred of conflicting data as to the studies conclusion - that conservatives, ceteris paribus (iow as related to income or in gross) give more $$$ to charity."


That was their (your?) OPINION - and we've been talking about a book and an article. And since you clearly stated you only want FACTS, please show me the supporting evidence for your supposed facts - I went looking for Mr. Brook's sources and found out there are some surveys. That's it.

"it doesn't follow, nor was it implied that all residents of a red state are red. duh. "

AHEM: did you even read the article?

• 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 donated just 1.9 percent.

so DUH yourself - That's from Will's article - obfuscating me because I live in a red state. Perhaps only the liberals in my red state gave to charity - this study/book/article gives as much proof of that as of your claim.

Lies, your lies, his lies and damn statistics.

The central assertion of the book that I found is that self-described "religious" people gave more to charity. Not one political party over another. I say again, The very TITLE of this book equates caring with money. How offensive.

Just how much more of this bullshit will you defend?

[selador]

38. evidence

"Worship your manna in peace. There is no evidence that your conclusions are true."

they are not my conclusions. and i didn't say they were true. i said that the only facts I have seen support one conclusion. all you have is rhetoric that you don't LIKE the conclusion, so therefore they are false

i will always give facts precedence over rhetoric.

"so DUH yourself - That's from Will's article - obfuscating me because I live in a red state. Perhaps only the liberals in my red state gave to charity - this study/book/article gives as much proof of that as of your claim.

Lies, your lies, his lies and damn statistics. "

no, you just fail to understand statistics. the point is that red leaning states gave more to charity than blue leaning states. that means that ON AVERAGE red peeps gave more than blue peeps. that statistic is just one (of several ways) that the author came to his conclusion

and your data contradicting him is where exactly? nowhere.


again, i am perfectly willing to accept the brooks is wrong. what is different between me and you is that i don't ASSUME he is wrong because i don't LIKE the conclusion

and when i ONLY see data to support his conclusion, and NONE to support a contrary one, i use occam's razor.

you should try it.

fwiw, there are only three possibilities:

1) conservatives and liberals pay roughly the same amount, as a %age of their income to charity
2) conservatives pay more ..... to charity
3) liberals pay more ..... to charity

one of them necessarily has to be true.

i have ONLY seen data to support 2)

i have seen people here get apoplectic over brooks' conclusion as to 2) but offer ZERO evidence that he is wrong

so, what evidence do you have that he is wrong?

apparently. none. jumping to conclusions without data. that's called prejudice at worst. bald assumptions at best

disputing a conclusion w/o data is even worse

[elizfeelinggreat]

44. WHAT?

"no, you just fail to understand statistics. the point is that red leaning states gave more to charity than blue leaning states. that means that ON AVERAGE red peeps gave more than blue peeps. that statistic is just one (of several ways) that the author came to his conclusion"

HE PROVED NOTHING. You're conflating.

You do have your favorite interpretation, don't you? You refuse to see anything but your own argument - a typical conservative projection. And you are touchy when I point out your money fixation.

The author only gave data that proved that religious people gave more to charity. The data says nothing about conservatives.

Will's opinion (and yours) are irrelevant to this book's conclusion.

I've got to go light some candles so enjoy arguing with yourself.

[selador]

46. i didn't say he PROVED it

"HE PROVED NOTHING. You're conflating.
"

i said i have only seen data to support it, and none to confront it.

"You do have your favorite interpretation, don't you? You refuse to see anything but your own argument - a typical conservative projection. And you are touchy when I point out your money fixation."

not at all. i would LOVE for brooks to be wrong, and i assumed opposite to what he concluded PRIOR to hearing his study.

the difference between me and you is that i am willing to accept things that i find personally distasteful if the DATA points that way.

you, otoh, just name call and obfuscate vs. accept inconvenient (apparent ) truths.

[SharonAnn]

28. The religious correlation is important. They give to churches and consider it "charity". Really.

[selador]

29. because it IS

it's that simple. you may not agree with the particular church's dogma or ideology but that doesn't mean it is not a form of charitable giving.

it sounds like people want to change the meaning of the word "charity" to mean something that can get them out of the uncomfortable realization that conservatives apparently give more to charity than liberals.

[elizfeelinggreat]

32. I don't believe

that has been shown by any "hard facts", only this author's opinions.

The data doesn't show that according to the sources cited....


Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares

The very TITLE of this book equates caring with money.

How much more of this bullshit will you defend?

[selador]

33. have you read the book

so, how do you know these facts aren't "hard?"

i have yet to see any REMOTELY "hard" disputation of same in this thread.

what do you have that REFUTES it?

nothing. but since you don't LIKE the conclusion, you KNOW the facts are wrong

that's called prejudice.

[elizfeelinggreat]

35. oh grow up

[selador]

36. another cogent response nt

[elizfeelinggreat]

37. Because I don't worship money?

You don't get it, do you?

[selador]

40. actually

according to brooks conservatives also donate more TIME to charitable org's.

so, it's true on both a money metric AND a time metric.

but of course that doesn't matter to you because you worship rhetoric over data

[elizfeelinggreat]

45. I simply understand the difference

between religious and conservative ... and don't like wasting time on people who don't.

Have a nice evening :)

[elizfeelinggreat]

30. Oh, I know

And it's a travesty.

[Dollface]

17. Actually, I was just being silly and pretending to be a Hannity.

I do wonder if additional research would reveal a regional as well as a political pattern to generosity and if the relationship between cash donations and political affiliation mirrors community service donations.

[selador]

22. ok

sorry if i missed the sarcasm

like i said, i don't LIKE the (apparent) fact that conservatives give more to charity

the difference between me and many in this thread is that if a fact pattern is presented that goes against my assumptions, i don't dismiss it because it makes me feel bad.

if liberals give less to charity than conservatives, that is NOT a good thing for liberals. period. it also reinforces the concept that conservatives are conservatives not because they are mean, but because they have different concepts of justice, fair process, rights, responsibilities, duties, role of govt., etc. etc.

ANYbody can give to charity. but people are FORCED to give to govt. so, the former is a very interesting metric because what people voluntarily give to charity is a bottom line test and instead of just dismissing this study , liberals should look fairly and introspectively at this data.

[Dollface]

48. I forgot the sarcasm thingy. My bad.

[Warpy]

5. A lot of what I do doesn't show up as charitable contributions

because I do peer to peer loans throughout the third world. Since they're loans and not straight donations, they don't qualify as charity, not even when I relend money that has been paid back.

I do year end giving, like most other taxpayers of means. What I do during the year just won't show up on my tax return.

[jwirr]

6. Well as someone who has been poor my entire 67 years I know one

thing - when I lived under pug rule (government) it was harder to survive. Because pugs think that "deadbeats" are getting their tax money they increase the red tape (& cost of administration) and many fall through the cracks. Democratic administrations are less likely to believe everything they hear about "welfare queens".

I think you have to be careful with the phrase "charitable" because it can have different meanings. Many pugs give only to their own kind, when they agree with all the policies and with little concern about what the poor need or want. This may also be true of Democrats but from my experience Democrats tend to come from backgrounds similar enough to mine that they realize that it is about basics not a fancy easter basket once a year.

[selador]

9. which again is irrelevant

"thing - when I lived under pug rule (government) it was harder to survive. Because pugs think that "deadbeats" are getting their tax money they increase the red tape (& cost of administration) and many fall through the cracks. Democratic administrations are less likely to believe everything they hear about "welfare queens". "

except the study makes none of the claims you intend to debunk. it says that PRIVATE charitable contributions (NOT govt. programs) are greater among conservatives than liberals.

i have yet to see one data point ot dispute the study from syracuse. just kneejerk argumentation because it makes liberals look bad.

that's called intellectual dishonesty. IF it is true, that sux. if not, let's see some data to counter the study.

[jwirr]

11. Fine you have it your way. I know better - when we needed help it

came in the form of Democratic instituted programs while our rich pug neighbors stopped by to see if we wanted to donate to their church programs - they failed to see that we were hungry even though they were standing in front of our sparsely set table as we ate. They give only to further their own ends. No one debunks it because if you just look at how much money and you do not look at what kind of programs and what these programs actually do you are missing the point. Democrats deliberately chose to give through government because it was more impartial and more accountable.

[selador]

15. much like

a creationist... when the data disagrees with your preconceived prejudices - just kneejerk and call bullshit on it

"came in the form of Democratic instituted programs while our rich pug neighbors stopped by to see if we wanted to donate to their church programs - they failed to see that we were hungry even though they were standing in front of our sparsely set table as we ate. They give only to further their own ends. No one debunks it because if you just look at how much money and you do not look at what kind of programs and what these programs actually do you are missing the point. Democrats deliberately chose to give through government because it was more impartial and more accountable. "

#1 that still doesn't dispute the author's claims. that conservatives give more to charity.

#2 how do democrats CHOOSE to give more through govt? are u claiming they pay more than what the IRS requires? i have seen no evidence of that.

i am heartened by liberals, such as bill gates who are immensely charitable. i ASSUMED that liberals probably gave more to charity. but unlike you, if i am confronted with data that goes against my assumptions, i do the intellectually honest thing and reassess my assumptions. YOU just run away from uncomfortable facts.

that's what THEY are supposed to do. WE live in the reality based community. or at least some of us do.

[jwirr]

23. I get what you are saying - my liberal family happily paid taxes to

help people. One of the big reasons people like *ss do not like government programs and prefer "charity" is because they are unwilling to have the government decide what to do with the money.

Did they look at the kinds of charities and how effective they were at solving the issues in this book? Did they just look at money given to any organization with a non-profit charitable status? My historical society fits into that category and we do not do anything to help the poor. The church I used to go to also fit into that category but did little actual community work. They called charity giving for the new refrigerator in the church kitchen.

I am calling the criteria of the book into question not the facts that they reported. If just giving to a non-profit is the goal then yes, pugs do better than Democrats. I still would take the Democrats.

[xfundy]

10. Pfft. Contributions to churches are considered charitable giving

...even though many "churches" are actually republican operatives. Screeds decrying 'libruls' both in church and from repigs, while * has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to "religious" groups.

[jwirr]

12. My point exactly, thank you.

[elizfeelinggreat]

14. PURE BS!

George Will decides what the definition of "charitable" is? HA HA HA

Bogus Study, facts made to fit his viewpoint. And that viewpoint is what is wrong with the person on this thread who is arguing about "proof" and "facts".

Charitable MEANS: full of love for and goodwill toward others. It does NOT mean how much $$$$$$$ you're giving to your favorite private "get to the heaven where your friends hang out" foundation.

George Will is spouting bullshit meant to make rich people feel virtuous. (The same rich people who keep him in print)

And, Don R. Willett? Slightly skewed perception of reality there. From Wikipedia:

In 1996, He joined George W. Bush's administration when he was Governor of Texas. Willett worked for the Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential Campaign. Upon Bush's election to the Presidency in 2000, Willett followed Bush to the White House and helped create the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, where he was Director of Law and Policy. Willett was a Deputy Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002, but he left to join Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office in 2003, where he worked until his appointment to the Texas Supreme Court.<2>

[edhopper]

18. How much of the charity

that conservatives give is to their church?
I personally don't think money going to Hagee or Robertson or Falwell is charity.

[selador]

43. you can personally think

anything you want.

but similarly, many conservatives might not think giving to various other ideological yet non-profit institutions are charity either.

however, this is an objective metric whereas what you "personally think" is not

[edhopper]

55. So enabling

the televangilists to fly in their own jets, live in mansions and stay at four star hotels is charity?

[booley]

19. It's like giving a dollar to a homeless guy

and then declaring you fixed homelessness in your city.

Private charities have always been at best band aids. At worst, a convenient excuse for the advantaged to not do anything that may cost them anything.

And some others have raised what seems a valid point. What constitutes "charitable giving"

If I pay taxes with the expectation that that money will be used at least in part for social programs, does that count as charitable? When I was in the Navy and they took out money for charities automaticly, I gave to the zero population growth fund. would conservatives think that as a charity the way i do?

[selador]

47. you really don't get it

charitable giving is BY DEFINITION voluntary.

you are compelled to pay taxes. regardless of your expectation

one aspect of charity is that it involves choice and free will.

do you not grok that distinction.

the navy may allow automatic payments to charities (my employer does as well), but as long as it is VOLUNTARY it can be charitable

if it is mandated, like taxes, you are not choosing to give to charity.

[booley]

49. Could say the same about you

Since the OP was about who is more compassionate.

Giving to a charity and working to protect and expand social programs may not be dissimilar. They can be different ways of expressing the same thing.

That's part of the point I was making.

And it's to say how much you grok yourself since in your zeal to accuse everyone of being stupid but you since you also didn't bother with the rest of the point's raised.

Such as what is considered a charity, how effective are such charities, how there are some that use donations as an excuse to ignore larger social problems and if the OP even had a valid case or not. You even seem to have ignored an issue you raised earlier.. who's defining a person r a family as "liberal" or "conservative"?

You have been talking about how others need to make better arguments. perhaps you should take your own advice.

[Dollface]

20. Professor Brooks writes for the American Enterprise Institute and the National Review.

Just FYI

[elizfeelinggreat]

25. fact-checking

According to Mr. Brook's website this book was written using these sources, which are just surveys, not hard facts:

S O U R C E S
2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey
2001, 2003 Panel Study of Income Dynamics
1996-2004 General Social Survey
1998-2001 International Social Survey Programme
2004 Maxwell Poll
2000 Giving and Volunteering Survey
2001 America Gives Survey



PS: The Panel Study of Income Dynamics has a website, I could find no evidence of this study separating conservatives and liberals or anything other than a "religious" measure.

[selador]

42. excellent!

the first post i have seen that actually searched for data (supporting or conflicting) to help clarify.

again, props to you!

[lpbk2713]

52. Compassionate Conservative --- The biggest oxymoron of all time.

"I didn't get the memo." .... GWB

[opihimoimoi]

53. Just cause them Libs give less doesn't make them less charitable..Thats Crap

Is that Arthur guy Mels Brother? Fuck him....

The Libs stand by their long record of caring sharing....

The Compassionate Conservative is an Illusion....a clever phrase to fool peeps...

They are neither Compassionate nor Conservative....they are rotten Humans who tend to care only for themselves...they have allowed the NEOCONS and PNACers to take over their Party...revealing their lack of comprehension/thinking...

Compassionate my ass.