"Liberal Tightwads"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    Since this is the season of giving, I thought some of you would like to help me out on this topic... we already discussed how conservatives are happier than liberals... but are they more charitable as well? Apparently so according to a liberal NYT op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&emc=eta1





    Mr. Kristof quoted a Mr. Arthur Brooks who had writen a book on the topic and said:



    The article even goes beyond financial giving and covers topics such as blood donation:



    Anyway, when we discussed 'happiness' earlier, a few of you claimed that it was simply due to an "ignorance is bliss" event. I'm just curious on all of your thoughts on this issue.


    BTW, I hope everyone here had a very Happy Holidays and a great New Years!
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    I'm not really sure what the point of this article is besides flamebait on behalf of the author.....

    I seem to remember a study recently that declared conservatives much more fearful than us big burly liberals;)
     
  3. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3
    The OP leaves out some key passages in the article of course. Nothing like cherry-picking to make some spurious point, it's the conservative way:



    So there we go. It's all a wash. I'm not sure what good donating to churches does, but as long as it gives someone a thrill, then fair enough.

    But as a supposedly conclusive result to present as a political axiom, it's laughable. :D
     
  4. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #4
    haha, interesting report!


    I guess one reason could be that liberals pay it though taxes(they vote to have higher state tax, so less money to donate in other ways)....just one possible explanation, I don't know how true that is.


    Another one is if liberal are less likely to go church(I'm assume thats true, but I know there are many religious liberals) that is a place where donations are common....and your source talks about that. Donating to a church, while nice, also tends to promote their belief.

    Also its possible that study didn't get all donations. Example, my parents donated food to this man they knew who lived in a trailer park....there was no record of those donations, but they did happen. My mom is also helping out a coworker who is getting divorced, renting an apartment and doesn't have much to furnish the place with.

    Those are only two example, but that idea, donations which don't really have a way to be reported, could be quite high.
     
  5. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #5
    I hardly see how posting a topic linking directly to a NYT article which references scientific polling data by the Catalogue for Philanthropy and Google can be called 'flamebait'. The definition of 'flamebait', sir, is not anything that does not fit within your worldview. I posted the data so that you could give your opinion on it, and the community could discuss it. Not so you could troll the post and debate my right to post it in the first place.

    Anyway.... for those of you actually interested, here also is the bio for Syracuse Professor Arthur Brooks who wrote the book quoted in the article. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/Pages/bio.htm
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    well fivepoint, if you READ my post, youd see I said the ARTICLE itself seems like flamebait, not you posting it. You can post whatever you want here.
     
  7. fivepoint, Jan 4, 2009
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2010

    fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    I certainly think that your point is valid... however, with most churches, the vast majority of the money goes directly to impoverished people, etc. In fact, for every dollar you give to a church far more of that dollar reaches people in need than virtually all other organizations out there.

    Also, why cherry-pick churches? How about we take out charity to university's? I'm sure the liberals give far more to university's than conservatives to, right?

    It's not 'a wash' as you'd claim, one group gives significantly more to charity than the other. Financially and otherwise. Also, cherrypicking? Like you just did? Anyway, this was the reason I posted the ENTIRE ARTICLE. :)

    [​IMG]
     
  8. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #8
    Sorry, I didn't read your post correctly. I assumed you were talking to me since the author of the article is a Liberal, and that certainly wouldn't want to be the type of attention he would want to receive.

    I apologize for the confusion.
     
  9. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #9
    I'll go ahead and tell you that you will get called on this...
    You will have to justify your statement and provide data

    Woof, Woof - Dawg [​IMG]
     
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    The political standings of the author doesn't matter, do you think that somehow changes the fact that its obviously written to rile someone up?

    Do u really expect me to just realize the author is a liberal and go " Oh well that changes things...."?

    Edit: And srry if im overreaching a bit, im kinda on edge right now.
     
  11. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #11
    Tonight at 11, Conservative says conservatives are better, liberal disagrees.
     
  12. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12
    Is that a fact? How about you back that up? I've had long experience working in the charity sector. I look forward to hearing more.

    Universities and secular organisations aren't in the habit of discriminating against others on religious grounds. This is why the shovelling off of social causes and programmes to churches can have disastrous effects.

    If you count churches as charities, or even as effective as secular charities.

    You don't even recognise an attempt to provide the balance lacking in your assertion.
     
  13. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
    Many christian charities and churches have some of the highest charity efficiency rates you can have.
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    that link goes to http://highest/ which isnt a site?:confused:
     
  15. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #15
    Is your assertion than the only good charity is a secular charity? Is your view that any one dollar given to a Lutheran Church charity is less valuable than any one dollar given to a secular charity?

    Hopefully not.
     
  16. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #16

    Yes, but you're trying to walk back your assertion as fact that:

    These two posts do not mean the same thing.
     
  17. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #17
    Not sure that website entirely supports your original assertion
    I'm not saying it isn't true... but this is a tough crowd... you will need to do better

    Edit: Damn... beaten to the punch by BV

    Woof, Woof - Dawg [​IMG]
     
  18. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #18
    Consider it to be thus called.

    FWIW, I don't disagree that some institutions are quite charitable in aid to the poor, etc ...

    ... it has just that my observations have included places like a South American church with a 1,500lb 97% pure silver altar, the Vatican complex, and even a hometown Protestant church with Tiffany Stain glass windows and a pipe organ that cost six digits ... in other words, a broad range of institutions that have a heck of a lot of raw wealth tied up in "themselves" one way or another that could be being used in another fashion.

    Thus also said, that doesn't mean that non-religious charities are better either: many of them are more interested in self-promotionally raising money than in what they're really supposed to be accomplishing. Its no walk in the park to find a good, efficient one.


    -hh
     
  19. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #19
    When it comes to human service provisions, yes. And the reason why, is because they do not discriminate against others on religious grounds. I think I've made that quite clear. From working with homeless people to dealing with Aids, religious organisations often will discriminate in line with their religious 'principles'.
     
  20. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #20
    If it will help you sleep better, consider the first a misstatement. At any rate, it doesn't matter anyway. Giving money to church charities has no reason to be cherry-picked away any more than any liberal-leaning charity does. They help people in need in many of the same ways.

    Also, is supporting christian charities any better/worse than museums, universities, etc?:

    The point here, and I think you know it, is that one group of people give more, and a higher percentage of their money to those in need. What I'm wondering is why? Many people like to peg "evil republicans" and conservatives as people who are not caring to other individuals. This article, brought to us by a flabbergasted liberal, seems to indicate the opposite is true.


    The article also addresses the claim that people in European countries are more charitable than the comparatively conservative Americans...

     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    LOL @ "liberal-leaning" charity. Would those be the ones trying to help everyone people of say, building a church to expand its base?
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    Well gee, no one saw that coming......:rolleyes:

    Edit: srry for the double post Blue, could you merge them? and get people to post faster!?
     
  23. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #23
    you know what he meant:cool:

    why argue over semantics?
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Actually on that one I REALLY don't know what he meant. I had no idea there were conservative charities and liberal ones, i thought they were meant to help and not discriminate at all.
     
  25. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #25
    Well, actually they don't help people just the same.

    No they don't. How exactly is giving money to a church unquestionably helping those in need?

    But without addressing differing tax deductibles and also the point that many of our institutions are already adequately funded from central government coffers, then that's yet another superficial observation that doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
     

Share This Page