Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
""“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Do you think maybe it has to do with the amount of tax-write offs that one receives for making such large & wondrous donations?
Mi Takuye Oyacin
Headed a commission to study American philanthropy and the result was that shockingly large amounts of American charitable giving were:
The new mission for philanthropy.
by Lamar Alexander , Reed Coleman , Elayne Bennett , Kenneth W. Dam , Jr. Henry Delaney , Kimberly O. Dennis , Chester E. Finn Jr. , Jerry E. Hill , Constance Horner , Jennie Lechtenberg , William H. Lock , Juan Rivera , Sam A. Williams
Shocking amounts of charitable giving are gravely misdirected and wholly ineffective. A report from a commission chaired by Lamar Alexander points the way toward a reformation of American philanthropy.
As far as giving the local human societies, I have had a great deal of experience in this area, and the single largest problem is the vast amount of waste that exists in the dozens or even hundreds of local organizations that exist for a stated purpose, that will not even attempt to co-ordinate efforts and more often than not resist any attempt to do so, because of the various egos involved with being the "President" or "CEO" or "Treasurer" of a small private charitable organization. Even if they established a central clearinghouse for to direct people to, the money used by these groups could be put to far more effective use. I have experienced this in a half a dozen cities and towns in separate areas of the country.
conservatives believe in private charity. liberal beleive in public charity.
You dont KNOW anything about how much they gave or you did.
On the whole ALL Americans donate rather little for charity, both privately AND publically. U.S. government humanitarian aid or private humanitarian as a function of GDP or individual income or any other measure is dismal.
Most data indicates that relying on private charity to eliminate poverty or suffering, relying on the private sector or the "market" to do so has proven to be a dismal failure. On a world wide scale, the evidence is that this function is better handled by government, rather than privately.
The Norwegians, for example, give 17 times as much per capita, for example, than Americans do. However almost all of this is done by the Norwegians agreeing to be TAXED and then have a say in how their government performs charitable functions.
The United States ranks close to the bottom of industrialized nations when it come to overall charity. Nations that have their govenrments do so by having a higher rate of taxation and then have the voters decide how this money is to be spent are the most effective overall at humanitarian aid
Obama and Biden hold the same view. That humanitarian aid works better as a function of government.
They are BOTH willing to have their own taxes raised in order to have a more effective humanitarian stance and position in the world.
THAT is charitable. Not taking a few dollars out of your own pockets occasionally to give to charitable causes as you see fit. This is at best chaotic and largely causes as much harm as it does assist
I will stop giving to charity at once. I wonder if I can get a refund on the waterbuffalo I gave for Christmas. I didn't want to give something they would eat.
I'll start planning my trip to Europe with the extra cash I will have.
Other than your incomplete and run on sentences, grammatical errors, apparent lack of an apostrophe, and general incoherence, you are brilliant.
In case that was not clear enough for you. Being taxed is not charitable giving, and I think you are a moron.
That during Republican and conservative administrations, the number of people who fall from the middle class into poverty always increase so conservaives SHOULD give to charity, since they are largely responsible for creating he need to begin with.
Republicans, for all their yammering about "trickle down economics" largely cause increased rates of poverty, largely among working people.
The average after-tax income of the top 1 per cent is 63 times larger than the average for the bottom 20 per cent - both because the rich have grown richer and also because the poor have grown poorer; about 19 per cent poorer since the late 1970s. The middle class, too, has been squeezed ever tighter. Every income group except for the top 20 per cent has lost ground in the past 30 years, regardless of whether the economy has boomed or tanked.
Republicans and conservatives largely stand in opposition to the intent of the founding fathers. These men examined every type of government known from world history and they came to two conclusions as to the causes of every type of tyrannical government.
The first was that extremes of poverty and wealth were primary causes or symptoms of tyrannies. The second was that "entrenched wealth is a cause and symptom of tyrannies.
There solution was not charity. It was a progressive system of taxation. Tom Paine clearly delineated this in "The Rights of Man" "Common Sense" and "Agrarian Justice" Here he clearly states that poverty should be eliminated by taxing wealth.
Jefferson and Madison states the same thing in numerous letters to each other, and Madison argued that extremes of wealth and poverty should be eliminated by taxing excessive wealth during the public arguments in Philadephia for he ratification of the constitution.
Ben Franklin succintly stated that no man had to right to anything but what was needed for their own modest comfort and that the rest belonged to the government. He stated this many times in many ways and most clearly he argued that "It is unfair that a poor widow housekeeper, all of whose property guarded by the watch did not exceed perhaps fifty pounds, paid as much as the wealthiest merchant, who had thousands of pounds of goods in his stores"
The founding fathers were well aware of how to eliminate poverty and tyrannical governments and that was to place limits on wealth.
THAT is charitable. Not taking a few dollars out of your own pockets occasionally to give to charitable causes as you see fit. This is at best chaotic and largely causes as much harm as it does assist.
So if I give $50 to the local humane society that actually hurts the residents? Does it destroy their sense of self-reliance?
Does anyone see anything wrong with using a handful of datapoints to represent millions of people?
Further, since Mr. Brooks said he expected that liberals would be more generous, then why did he write the book? I'm pretty sure Western Conference basketball teams play less defense. So I'm equally sure I'm not going to write a book probing into whether or not it's true.
The column has no data of it's own, merely citing a book called "Who Really Cares" by Arthur Brooks. Brooks is, among other things, a Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.
If I were Arcanum or Kristof I might not base my worldview of charity on one book by a think-tanker. Call it a hunch.
The author of the book started with the assumption that liberals would give more. The data then made him change his mind. Doesn't sound like much bias to me.
"“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”"
I know I give more annually than Mr. Biden, and Mr. Obama combined in 2004 (the last year I can quickly find valid data).
Heck my ten bucks a week in the collection basket at Mass on Sundays outpaces Biden.
Hosted By ibiblio XML Twitter!