Conservatives Are Far More Generous Than Liberals

Conservatives Are Far More Generous Than Liberals
I balked at that first, then I got to thinking maybe it's true. Look at all blood and money of their countrymen they showered on the middle east.

hsilgne said:

This graph is interesting. It appears that the more socialist a country is in political ideology... the less generous the people are. Socialist ideology hardens the hearts of people.

GIVING LEVELS, by COUNTRY
(annual private philanthropy as a % of GDP)
View attachment 169501

Click to expand...

This graph is so laughably bad that I did not want to waste time commenting on it earlier. But some of you may be fooled by it. Let's clear up the poster's assumption about "socialist ideology" and generosity. You simply cannot make that conclusion from the data (as poor as it is). That is an opinion, not a logical conclusion, and it is not based on anything presented. We will get back to that.

The biggest problem with the chart is that includes only 14 countries. In most lists and comparisons of countries, you will find around 135 to 140. So the chart is showing about 10% of all the countries in the world, which is like deciding which is the best NBA team by only comparing three of them.

The U.S. does give a lot, but in recent years the rankings of the country with the best "giving index" has shown a virtual tie between the U.S. and Myanmar. Myanmar is predominately Theravada Buddhist. Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and the UK are in the top group, but also countries like Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Bhutan.

It is true that many "social welfare" countries are lower on the list for charitable giving within their own countries. An article in Forbes Magazine (not a liberal publication) points out that people in European and other "social welfare" countries have less disposable income to donate. As the article points out there are also more people in need in the U.S. than in those countries; they have a stronger "social safety net" for all. So people in "socialist" countries donate less monetarily since there is less need. However, it is also pointed out that people in "social welfare" countries are at the top when it comes to volunteering, giving of their time. Sweden is a good example. So the idea that "socialist ideology hardens hearts" is simply false.

An interesting corollary to this is to look at which countries give the most humanitarian aid to other countries. The U.S., of course, leads by far in this category. When you look at the amount of aid per capita, however, then Sweden is the leader, with other "social welfare" countries also in the top tier. Let me close by pointing that the top three in this category are Sweden, Norway and Finland. All are "socialist" countries with supposedly "hardened hearts" that provide more aid than other, much larger, non-socialist countries. They not only take care of their own, but provide major amounts of aid to people in need throughout the world.

Please don't get duped by people who use selective and often inaccurate statistics in bogus ways to push their personal agenda

Rick Otto said:

Conservatives Are Far More Generous Than Liberals
I balked at that first, then I got to thinking maybe it's true. Look at all blood and money of their countrymen they showered on the middle east.

Click to expand...

Ouch , that left a bruise.

An interesting look at a similar study from a couple of years ago: Link

When money given to congregations is factored into the charitable giving, the deck is stacked in favor of the religious, and in favor of conservatives who are more likely to be religious than are liberals. 40% of charitable giving is given to religious congregations (this does not include a further 35% which is given to faith-based charities). The non-religious by definition aren't giving to religions to support church buildings, priests and pastors, staff, religious education, etc.

Maynard Keenan said:

An interesting look at a similar study from a couple of years ago: Link

When money given to congregations is factored into the charitable giving, the deck is stacked in favor of the religious, and in favor of conservatives who are more likely to be religious than are liberals. 40% of charitable giving is given to religious congregations (this does not include a further 35% which is given to faith-based charities). The non-religious by definition aren't giving to religions to support church buildings, priests and pastors, staff, religious education, etc.

Click to expand...

Religious organization expenses compared to other charitable organizations expenses.
Church buildings - office buildings, hospital building, etc.
priest, pastors - executives, CEOs, etc.
staff - staff
Religious education?? Not sure what you are referring to here.

I'm not comparing the costs of a church to the cost of a private charity. 40% of "charitable" giving merely supports the operation of religious congregations. To say that more-religious conservatives are more generous than less-religious liberals because religious people donate to religious congregations is ridiculous. That religious people pay to run the churches they go to (basically a user fee for an activity) doesn't make them more generous than non-religious people. And the giving to keep churches in operation largely explains the difference in giving between the religious and non-religion, conservatives and liberals.

Error

What is far more despicable than "bragging" about who gives what to charity is when Democratic policy makers revamp immigration policy for the only purpose of increasing their voter population so they can retain power and pass welfare laws which are supposed to be for Americans who really need it, but instead are handed to illegals who've been here all of five minutes... And if these largely uninvested (illegal) immigrants don't vote... There are unscrupulous people in govt who vote in their places. That not compassion for the poor. That's power hunger.

Miss Shelby said:

What is far more despicable than "bragging" about who gives what to charity is when Democratic policy makers revamp immigration policy for the only purpose of increasing their voter population so they can retain power and pass welfare laws which are supposed to be for Americans who really need it, but instead are handed to illegals who've been here all of five minutes... And if these largely uninvested (illegal) immigrants don't vote... There are unscrupulous people in govt who vote in their places. That not compassion for the poor. That's power hunger.

Click to expand...

Last I checked the policy makers, which would be Congress, are mostly Republican. How can Democrats revamp immigration policy and pass welfare laws when Republicans are in control? How can Democrats "retain power" when they do not have it?

Are you talking about the U.S or some other country?

And how does any of what you wrote pertain to the topic?

I'm talking about policies initiated in the middle sixties which have now come to fruition. You can look up Teddy Kennedy you can up his immigration policy he initiated and if you're able to see the bigger picture picture than maybe you'll understand. I'm not talking about what's happening this term or last term I am saying what was done decades ago is having a full fledged effect right now. Supposed kind hearted generous liberal systematically changed the demographic so they get a large voter base and of course congratulate themselves as being generou citing their programs as benefing the poor.

Miss Shelby said:

What is far more despicable than "bragging" about who gives what to charity is when Democratic policy makers revamp immigration policy for the only purpose of increasing their voter population so they can retain power and pass welfare laws which are supposed to be for Americans who really need it, but instead are handed to illegals who've been here all of five minutes... And if these largely uninvested (illegal) immigrants don't vote... There are unscrupulous people in govt who vote in their places. That not compassion for the poor. That's power hunger.

Click to expand...

that's exactly it. people don't get it. They just don't get it.

Miss Shelby said:

I'm talking about policies initiated in the middle sixties which have now come to fruition. You can look up Teddy Kennedy you can up his immigration policy he initiated and if you're able to see the bigger picture picture than maybe you'll understand. I'm not talking about what's happening this term or last term I am saying what was done decades ago is having a full fledged effect right now. Supposed kind hearted generous liberal systematically changed the demographic so they get a large voter base and of course congratulate themselves as being generou citing their programs as benefing the poor.

Click to expand...

and you see all these deluded people on here, forgive me, WHITE bread born Americans fall for their baloney and that's how they get away with it. and they have to ask, actually ask how Trump got this far... well because there is still left a population that didn't corrupt or brain wash who didn't fall for their baloney who knows what's up and is who is just done.

Miss Shelby said:

I'm talking about policies initiated in the middle sixties which have now come to fruition. You can look up Teddy Kennedy you can up his immigration policy he initiated and if you're able to see the bigger picture picture than maybe you'll understand. I'm not talking about what's happening this term or last term I am saying what was done decades ago is having a full fledged effect right now. Supposed kind hearted generous liberal systematically changed the demographic so they get a large voter base and of course congratulate themselves as being generou citing their programs as benefing the poor.

Click to expand...

Revisionist history abounds here. The Immigration Law that was passed in 1965 was not initiated by Ted Kennedy. He did support it and helped get it passed in the Senate, but it was not his bill and he was not the author of it. The need for immigration reform was quite obvious, as the prior law, with its quotas favoring western and Northern Europeans, was clearly discriminatory. When it came to a vote in the House and Senate, the percentage of Republicans voting in favor of the bill was greater than the percentage of Democrats. In other words, it was universally supported.

The act of 1965 was followed by later revisions, one happening when Reagan was President. It is amazing to me that people continually blame laws they don't like on Democrats and liberals, even though Republicans have voted for them (sometimes as the majority party), and conservative Presidents have not vetoed them.

hsilgne said:

Liberals and the liberal media like to propagate the notion that conservatives are rich, greedy, stingy old white folk(BTW... notice how the two Dem's left in the presidential race are rich, white and old? And on the conservative side 2 of the top 3 are young Hispanics? - anyway, I digress) who don’t give a darn about the down trodden. And that the liberals are the generous ones who care for the poor.

You really have to hand it to them liberals... they’re good at selling their ‘product’.

Many people(in poker circles we use the term ‘fish’) swallow it... hook, line and sinker.

But... every time the stats get tallied its the same result...

Conservatives are the generous ones and liberals are the stingy ones.

Conservatives give way, way more to charities than liberals do.

And the real kicker is, on average... conservatives earn less!

They earn 6% less on average than liberals do... but they give 30% more.

View attachment 169494
View attachment 169495

...don't be a fish.

Learn the truth.

Click to expand...

I know also the conservatives are quiet too about their offerings.

mark46 said:

It is true that in the US, charities take on more of the role in providing social services to the people than is the case in Europe.
There are states where the churches provide more money for social services that the state does.

That does NOT mean that the people are not provided for in Europe. In the end, there is a greater need for charities in the US.

Consider where we would be if all the church sponsored hospitals and social welfare was cut of. Because of the low level of support from the state, charities are in integral part of the provision of services in the US.

You mention Utah as a good model, the highest charitable contributions. So, the Mormon Church has an extensive social welfare system, more expansive that of state and local governments in Utah.
===========
BOTTOM LINE
Our poor shouldn't have to depend on charities for food, clothing, shelter and health care for any long period of time. Way too many people fall through the cracks and don't receive these services.
=============
JUST BY THE WAY
Most of what you see is that "conservatives" give to their churches.

Click to expand...

If you give to the right Church - it's spread over the world.
Given to poverty stricken areas.