Bleeding Heart Tightwads

[Big Don]

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

December 21, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
Excerpt:

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
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.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“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.”
END EXCERPT

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad.

See the 88 new taxes and fees in NY State...
Always generous with OUR money, with THEIR money? Not so much

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Might be why the bulk of giving is from those "rich" bastards, who are usually Republican, funny that, that Democrats always want to raise taxes on.

 

[jarrod]

i wonder how it would divide up if they examined volunteer work instead of financial gifts.

jf

 

[elder999]

Might be why the bulk of giving is from those "rich" bastards, who are usually Republican, funny that, that Democrats always want to raise taxes on.

Actually, the statistics on that are a little more skewed. I'd point to California and the so-called "Hollywood elite" for some anecdotal supportive data-there, the perception is that the overwhelming majority of the "rich" vote Democratic. This actually does follow the statistical model, in fact: in "poor states," like Mississippi, the rich are voting overwhelmingly Republican, while in "richer states,"like Connecticut, the link between party preference and wealth is hardly correlative at all-that is to say that the rich evenly split their votes between Democratic and Republican, or have a slight bias in each direction on a state by state basis. While differences in racial composition may explain up to half of the phenomenon, the other half remains largely unexplained. Another theory maintains that in poorer states, the wealthy are more religious, and thus also more likely to vote Republican, while in wealthier states, the rich are somewhat less religious, but who knows?

You can find a paper by four statisticians, including Andrew Gelman, a professor at Columbia University, here. It has a very silly title, but it's fairly short, and outlines what I've said above.

To sum up, though-the rich do tend to vote Republican, but not nearly as much as the common perception seems to be-a great many of them vote Democratic, depending upon, apparently, what state they reside in.....

...as for the whole "who gives" thing, it would be interesting to see if those conservatives included "tithing" for their church as a non-profit contribution-since, as I pointed out, they are more likely to be religious, and this could well account for the difference.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

December 21, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
Excerpt:

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
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.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“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.”
END EXCERPT
See the 88 new taxes and fees in NY State...
Always generous with OUR money, with THEIR money? Not so much

Its because Liberals are only happy spending other peoples money, and telling other people what they should be doing..
Its classic do as I say not as I do.
I like helping charities, I just like spending it where I see fit. I do not need some liberal idiot telling me I need to spend on programs I do not support.
And the comment about republicans wanting to cut health care for children is stupid and misleading. Typical liberal rhetoric to make everyone but themselves look bad.
ZERO RESPECT for liberals... ridiculous

 

[Ray]

Its because Liberals are only happy spending other peoples money, and telling other people what they should be doing..

It's because liberals want to be "fair." "Fair" to them means "I'm not giving unless everyone gives."

Others want to do "what's right" regardless of what everyone else is doing.

 

[Nolerama]

Its because Liberals are only happy spending other peoples money, and telling other people what they should be doing..
Its classic do as I say not as I do.
I like helping charities, I just like spending it where I see fit. I do not need some liberal idiot telling me I need to spend on programs I do not support.
And the comment about republicans wanting to cut health care for children is stupid and misleading. Typical liberal rhetoric to make everyone but themselves look bad.
ZERO RESPECT for liberals... ridiculous[/quote]

:deadhorse Just keep on kicking the liberal vs. conservative horsey... Because THAT wins hearts and minds.

Political liberals aren't ALL idiots... I mean, just because I own a pair of Birkenstocks, ride a bicycle to and from work, recycle, believe hemp is the new way to go in terms of textiles, and think that the smell of patchouli is refreshing, doesn't make me an idiot. An evil, money grubbing hippie liberal, but no idiot...

Come on, keep the hatred down to a minimum so I can at least respect the content in your posts.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

:deadhorse Just keep on kicking the liberal vs. conservative horsey... Because THAT wins hearts and minds.

Political liberals aren't ALL idiots... I mean, just because I own a pair of Birkenstocks, ride a bicycle to and from work, recycle, believe hemp is the new way to go in terms of textiles, and think that the smell of patchouli is refreshing, doesn't make me an idiot. An evil, money grubbing hippie liberal, but no idiot...

Come on, keep the hatred down to a minimum so I can at least respect the content in your posts.

I despise anyone who tries to tell me what I should not do, or can't have, or should give, just because they want it that way. Less government, le tme give where I see fit, and let me have what I want. I do not tell the Libs they cant give where they want, have what they want, and eat what they want, why should I be subject to their demands on me?
Hate means I care about them. Its too strong, I could care less about them, I just want to be left alone, and despise having to deal with it.

 

[Tez3]

Exactly what are American Liberals? I ask because they bear absolutely no resemblance to Liberals here who of course are the original party. Our Liberal party started as the Whigs in the 17th century and we've had many Liberal prime ministers starting with Walpole,going through to the Pitts junior and senior, Earl Grey, Palmerston, Gladstone, Lloyd-George and many more. None of these gentlemen fit the description given of Liberals then or now here, at which point did the American liberals turn into what we would call the Labour party? I know America had a Whig party in the 19th century but what happened to it?

 

[Nolerama]

I despise anyone who tries to tell me what I should not do, or can't have, or should give, just because they want it that way. Less government, le tme give where I see fit, and let me have what I want. I do not tell the Libs they cant give where they want, have what they want, and eat what they want, why should I be subject to their demands on me?
Hate means I care about them. Its too strong, I could care less about them, I just want to be left alone, and despise having to deal with it.

Whatever, man. I'm just saying that this is a very diverse group. There's a fine line where the words you're typing stray away from a good point, and all anyone sees is a hateful, overly emotional poster. I'm just trying to help you out.

Despise me for being a good neighbor.

Check the ego at the "door."

 

[Tez3]

I think this has been pointed out before, this is an international site, posters from many nations read and post on here. The reason for my asking about American Liberals is that what is basically a hate post is made about Liberals and directed at all of us is hardly fair when we believe different things and being a lIberal in one country is different from being a liberal in another. It's hardly respectful to post that you hate Liberals and manage to insult a fair few who are liberals but don't meet your criteria!

 

[Nolerama]

Exactly what are American Liberals? I ask because they bear absolutely no resemblance to Liberals here who of course are the original party. Our Liberal party started as the Whigs in the 17th century and we've had many Liberal prime ministers starting with Walpole,going through to the Pitts junior and senior, Earl Grey, Palmerston, Gladstone, Lloyd-George and many more. None of these gentlemen fit the description given of Liberals then or now here, at which point did the American liberals turn into what we would call the Labour party? I know America had a Whig party in the 19th century but what happened to it?

Where would one start? According to Almighty Wikipedia:

Liberalism in the United States is a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty, whether they come from established religion, from government regulation, or from the existing class structure.[1] Liberalism in the United States takes various forms, ranging from classical liberalism to social liberalism to neoliberalism.

Then, there's the American Conservative, their arch-nemesis:

Conservatism in the United States is a major American political ideology. In contemporary American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Core conservative principles include belief in God and country, and most U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government and laissez faire capitalism. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate "American exceptionalism," an ideology that holds that the U.S. is unique among nations of the world and that its standing and actions globally are hugely influential in dictating the direction of the entire world. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, American conservatives have been the driving force behind increased U.S. military power.

And then there's me:

With a brain. And I vote and think along lines not set by either political polar opposite. Yes, I like social change. But I also like a strong (but intelligent) hand in American military action and foreign policy. That might make me a hypocrite to those existing on one of the aforementioned ends of American political theory, but I like to think (for myself) that my views are researched and align with my standards and moralities.

 

[Tez3]

Thanks Nolerama. The trouble is the liberals you describe are the same as the liberals I recognise but aren't the same as the liberals described in Luckykboxers posts who want to tell him what to do etc!!

 

[theletch1]

That's because when one is referring to a "liberal" in America now-a-days it bears little resemblance to the definition that was given. Let me see what Wiki has to say about an American progressive.

 

[theletch1]

Here's the Wiki answer on progressivism:

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations. Conversely, European and Australian progressives tend to be more pro-business[citation needed], and will often have policies that are soft on taxation of large corporations[citation needed]. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and the Labour party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates

Full article here.

As a general rule both the liberal and conservative agendas in America have been hijacked by folks on the extreme fringes of either movement. The vast majority of Americans fall, IMO, somewhere in the middle but it's the fringes that make the most noise. You know what they say about the squeaky wheel.

 

[Nolerama]

But that's the P-word...

And it makes peoples' brains itch.

 

[Tez3]

Here's the Wiki answer on progressivism: [quote}American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations. Conversely, European and Australian progressives tend to be more pro-business[citation needed], and will often have policies that are soft on taxation of large corporations[citation needed]. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and the Labour party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates

Full article here.[/quote]



this is what I got on Liberals here from Wiki!

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1]
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] free markets,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[4]
Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.[5][6][7] Liberals argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity.[8]
The first modern liberal state was the United States of America[9], founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[10


This is the explanation I recognise less so the first. I don't think British Liberals support the Labour Party as they have their own party the Liberal Democrats.

 

[Phoenix44]

Very sensational, but I'm skeptical of creative statistics, and I'd truly love to see the raw data.

How do they figure their "relative generosity"? By absolutes? Percentages?

Is the billionaire who donates 10% of his income, but can easily live like a king on the balance, "generous," while the nurse earning $45,000 who donates $1,000 a "tightwad"?

As for geographic differences, maybe it's more expensive to live in colder climates than in the South, so there's relatively more disposable income in warmer areas.

Richer people are likely to keep receipts for tax deductions; not so the guy who throws $20 in the Salvation Army kettle.

And what about the volunteer fireman who puts his life on the line? Or the college student who spends her summer building homes for Habitat for Humanity? Or the people who serve in the soup kitchens? Or the Scouts who earn their merit badges? Or the bone marrow donor? Or the Bar Mitzvah kids doing their community service projects? Or the high school band that plays at the senior center? Or the senior citizen who counsels new businessmen? Or the docents at the museum or aquarium?

Are they "liberal tightwads" because they don't have any receipt for their services? Is it only "charity" if you get a tax deduction?

The whole concept of "relative generosity" based on your political view is not only mean spirited, but really pointless. (Though it does sell books.)

And is it really necessary for you to refer to me as an "idiot"? Because that is truly uncharitable.

 

[Nolerama]

It does bring up the question: what's more charitable?

Volunteering your precious time helping the needy?

or

Writing a check for a substantial amount of money?

I think both approaches to vindicating oneself from being called a "Tightwad" have great points. On one hand, someone is attempting to empathize with those in need by serving them, and meeting them on a human level. On the other, monetary goals are something all organizations have and need to meet in order to survive.

As I see it, the REAL question here is not of personal preference to charity, but of character.

Are you still a good person because the check you wrote helps people in the long run, even though it's ultimately a tax write-off?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I live in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia...
California, USA for those that don't get the joke.

Liberalism here takes a perverse turn to the disgusting.

Basically it comes down to a group of people that feel they should have the power to tell me what I can and can't spend my money on. They want to give jobs and my money to people who dont want ot work and dont have initiative. They want to punish people like me for taking a chance and succeeding in busines and making money, and reward people that vote the party line and have their hands out for their meal ticket.
I don't mind progresive thoughts and ideas. I dont mind things that tend to be thought of as left wing/democratic/liberal ideas in the USA like Stem cell research, education reform, and environmental protection to name a few, I just tend to want to go about it in a manner that makes sense. The liberals I refer too are the ones that want to reward people based on their vote and being able to keep themselves in power.
I prefer to reward those that work for something, and allow good citizens to decide what to spend their money on, how to spend their money, and where to spend their money.