Discussion: Liberal v. Conservative

[chaseter]

I'll take your soul!

 

[2kt09]

Liberalism has been hijacked by the regressive left, conservatism has been hijacked by the alt-right.

Translation:
Liberalism has been hijacked by real-world applications with various schools of thought.
Conservatism has been hijacked by an overnight hysteria of what we think we know or should know.

The overwhelming majority is thus and I figure this is the best place to discuss fringe groups.

 

[SV Fan]

The right give more to charity than the left overall and also on average, a larger percentage of their personal income (even to secular causes) comparatively. You might say, oh that includes religion! Well, the Catholic Church is one of the World's largest charities. It may even be the largest...I can't remember.

I am sorry but this doesn't equal charity

Beyond that

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

Here is a map when you include religious stuff as charity:

And here is a map when you don't:

From a personal standpoint I give food and toys as the bulk of my charitable giving(without expecting a tax right off). I also many times give 10/20 dollars here and there(once again not expecting a tax right off for my good deed). If you look at my tax returns I have a big fat 0 for charitable giving but I give close to 1500 every year by time you add everything up(and unlike people who donate to churches I know the bulk of the stuff I give gets used for charity purposes and not for overhead of the "charity" in question).

 

[summerteeth]

I am sorry but this doesn't equal charity

Beyond that

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

Here is a map when you include religious stuff as charity:

And here is a map when you don't:

From a personal standpoint I give food and toys as the bulk of my charitable giving(without expecting a tax right off). I also many times give 10/20 dollars here and there(once again not expecting a tax right off for my good deed). If you look at my tax returns I have a big fat 0 for charitable giving but I give close to 1500 every year by time you add everything up(and unlike people who donate to churches I know the bulk of the stuff I give gets used for charity purposes and not for overhead of the "charity" in question).

The methodology here is so strange. All you can really take out of this is certain regions are more generous than others and really does not tell you anything about religious people in general. It's operating under the assumption because that more people are religious in the South that somehow that region is a representation of all religious people in the country. It also includes Utah in the West which is one of the most religious states in the country and which is largely a reason why areas of Utah have some of the lowest income disparity in the country because of the congregational outreach and charity from the LDS community (as much as they can be criticized on other issues).

In order to reach the conclusion that you and this very biased website reached you would also have to operate under the assumption that 100% of what the South gives are towards operation costs for the congregation and not any type of other charitable work in the community. I always tell people if you just go to your local church and ask what charitable works they do you will probably be surprised.

I don't have time to go track it down right now, but the best study I saw on this was that religious do give more percent of their income than non-religious even when you take out congregational contributions. That non-religious do give more but not a higher percent of their income. Although, when you include congregational contributions religious even surpass that of the seemingly wealthier non-religious. I also disagree with the notion that congregational contributions aren't valuable to the community. I don't like getting into the game of telling people that their charity isn't important or has less value.

Not only do Americans give generously to charities with religious affiliations, but the most religious Americans are also the most charitable. In our book American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Robert Putnam and I show that there is a strong connection between being religious and being charitable. Not surprisingly, the most highly religious Americans contribute their time and treasure to religious causes. But they also give to secular causes—at a higher rate than do the most secular Americans.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/26/religious-people-are-more-charitable/

 

[SV Fan]

The methodology here is so strange.

Not really the top map includes all "charity" as viewed under the eyes of the IRS, the bottom map is all "charity" not counting money given to churches(for the sake of argument that would include me giving money say to a local art museum or local ballet company, etc. which one could argue is just as much "charity" as money given to a build a church)

 

[summerteeth]

Not really the top map includes all "charity" as viewed under the eyes of the IRS, the bottom map is all "charity" not counting money given to churches(for the sake of argument that would include me giving money say to a local art museum or local ballet company, etc. which one could argue is just as much "charity" as money given to a build a church)

No offense, but I'm confused because what you addressed isn't at all why I thought the methodology was strange.

 

[SV Fan]

No offense, but I'm confused because what you addressed isn't at all why I thought the methodology was strange.

How exactly is it strange? It's basically saying this is the amount that certain areas give to charity as a percentage of their overall earnings, including money given to church and the other one says this is the amount of money given to non church charities. It's fairly easy to understand that

To make is simpler for you

Person A makes $100,000, gives $5,000 to his church and $2,000 to other non church charities. Map One would say they gave 7% to charity, map 2 would say he
gave 2%

Person B makes $100,000, gives 0 to churches, but $3,000 to non church charities. Map One would say he gave 3%, map 2 would say he gave 3%

 

[summerteeth]

How exactly is it strange? It's basically saying this is the amount that certain areas give to charity as a percentage of their overall earnings, including money given to church and the other one says this is the amount of money given to non church charities. It's fairly easy to understand that

Right, so all you can determine is that certain regions give more than others that's it, to use it for anything further than that is ignoring any other compounding factors like culture, denominations, Protestant vs Catholic heck even other religions outside of Christianity that may be more prevalent in other regions. It's not exactly accurate to take a region of the United States and use it to represent all religious people in the country. I also pointed out that Utah is also one of the most religious states in the country and it is in a completely different region. I feel like you didn't read what I wrote previously.

Lol you don't need to make it simpler for me I get the difference between map 1 and map 2, you are missing my point completely.

 

[SV Fan]

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/business/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?

Some highlights of this article

-Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.

(for people who don't want to read the paper it basically says when you take out the variables of how much money somebody makes and whether they go to church or not, it makes no difference if they are liberal or conservative to how much they give, so a church going person who makes 50k would give roughly the same whether they were liberal or conservative, while a non church going person who makes 75k would give roughly the same whether they liberal or conservative)

-What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it

And to make my original point about building churches(ie giving money to a church is a terrible bang for your buck basically, if charity is you main reason behind it)

-The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

(As I said above when I give food products, I know 100% of my donation goes in people's mouths. maybe i don't get a tax break because of the way I generally donate but that shouldn't be the point of charity)

 

[summerteeth]

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/business/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?

Some highlights of this article

-Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.

(for people who don't want to read the paper it basically says when you take out the variables of how much money somebody makes and whether they go to church or not, it makes no difference if they are liberal or conservative to how much they give, so a church going person who makes 50k would give roughly the same whether they were liberal or conservative, while a non church going person who makes 75k would give roughly the same whether they liberal or conservative)

-What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it

And to make my original point about building churches(ie giving money to a church is a terrible bang for your buck basically, if charity is you main reason behind it)

-The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

(As I said above when I give food products, I know 100% of my donation goes in people's mouths. maybe i don't get a tax break because of the way I generally donate but that shouldn't be the point of charity)

That's not what it said...

WPanel B show
that Republicans donate 45% more to their own congregation (B=0.35, SE=0.14), but there
is basically no difference, only 3%, in donations to other religious organizations (B=0.04,
SE=0.16). The earlier finding that Republicans donate more than Democrats is not only
driven by Republicans donating more to religious organizations, but more specifically to
their own religious congregation.

So even in this study conservatives donate 3% more unless you don't want to count things like The Salvation Army or other popular charities. So not only are they matching liberals in secular charities, but they are donating 45% more to their congregation to which you stated 10-25% goes to social welfare programs and then donating an additional 3% more to religious organizations.

What it actually found was that if you adjust for church attendance than there is no difference in charitable giving, but if you include it conservatives win out. That it's not conservative ideology that makes someone more giving in itself but when you combine it with religion...

In particular, simply adjusting
for differences in church attendance between conservatives and liberals annihilates
any conservative advantage in giving.

Furthermore, if you move away from conservative vs liberal and just go with Republican vs Democrat it finds that Republicans donate substantially more even when you adjust for income and church attendance.

iThe final two columns disaggregate giving for partisans. Here, Republicans donate 43%
more to religious charities compared to Democrats (B=0.37, SE=0.15); however, there does
not appear to be a difference in secular giving between partisans. The substantively large
partisan gap we found in Table 2, therefore, occurs because Republicans donate 43% more
to religious organizations

 

[The Overlord]

That's not what it said...



So even in this study conservatives donate 3% more unless you don't want to count things like The Salvation Army or other popular charities. So not only are they matching liberals in secular charities, but they are donating 45% more to their congregation to which you stated 10-25% goes to social welfare programs and then donating an additional 3% more to religious organizations.

What it actually found was that if you adjust for church attendance than there is no difference in charitable giving, but if you include it conservatives win out. That it's not conservative ideology that makes someone more giving in itself but when you combine it with religion...



Furthermore, if you move away from conservative vs liberal and just go with Republican vs Democrat it finds that Republicans donate substantially more even when you adjust for income and church attendance.

Who is writing these studies saying conservatives give more money to charity then liberals and how do square that the attitudes many Republicans have towards the poor?

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/gop-blames-poverty-laziness

Also how do square this idea of religious conservatives giving more money to charity with mega church pastors who want money for private jets:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/13/living/creflo-dollar-jet-feat/

I'm wary of this idea and the liberal media theory, because these seem like justifications more then anything else.

"Its okay for me to thing poor people are lazy SOBs, because conservatives give more money to charity then liberals."

"No conservative politician or pundit ever has to be held accountable for what they say or do, because the liberal media just distorts everything they say."

I also think religious conservatives who use this idea as a talking point, are forgetting the parable where God favors a really poor person who gives what little they have to charity, over the rich person who gives a lot money to the poor, but does it just to get praise. That is why I don't like this talking point of "conservatives give more charity, so there", the sentient rings hollow when you use it as a talking point.

 

[summerteeth]

Who is writing these studies saying conservatives give more money to charity then liberals and how do square that the attitudes many Republicans have towards the poor?

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/gop-blames-poverty-laziness

Also how do square this idea of religious conservatives giving more money to charity with mega church pastors who want money for private jets:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/13/living/creflo-dollar-jet-feat/

I'm wary of this idea and the liberal media theory, because these seem like justifications more then anything else.

"Its okay for me to thing poor people are lazy SOBs, because conservatives give more money to charity then liberals."

"No conservative politician or pundit ever has to be held accountable for what they say or do, because the liberal media just distorts everything they say."

I also think religious conservatives who use this idea as a talking point, are forgetting the parable where God favors a really poor person who gives what little they have to charity, over the rich person who gives a lot money to the poor, but does it just to get praise. That is why I don't like this talking point of "conservatives give more charity, so there", the sentient rings hollow when you use it as a talking point.

It's been addressed already that it is an MIT study. I also posted a link from a Time Magazine article earlier as well that came to the same conclusions.

 

[ban768]

I mean, they've done studies. To be honest, it seems so self-evident to me, when you look at modern-society. You have one side that denies evolution and climate change. Sure, you do have some anti-vaxxers on the left, but they're a small, annoying minority. But the Republican Party is basically the anti-science party in the United States, unless it has military application. Saying you believe in evolution gets you in trouble.

I think you mean you want non-ancedotal evidence.

I consider myself a liberal, but both the Democratic and Republican Party I would say are both equally anti-science, but just in different areas. You forgot to mention besides the liberal anti-vaxxers, they are also extremely anti-GMO's as well.

 

[The Overlord]

It's been addressed already that it is an MIT study. I also posted a link from a Time Magazine article earlier as well that came to the same conclusions.

Does one study make something an irrefutable fact? I think the truth is more complex then what you are suggesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ritable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/


And you are ignoring my other points, it seems like this idea that conservatives give more then liberals is used as a justification for some Republicans to be comfortable in demonizing the poor. Also going back to my Biblical parable, isn't conservatives bragging about this and using this as a political talking point, make this seem hollow? Did Jesus command his followers to brag about how charitable they are? Are you okay with that?

 

[KevanG]

I thought this was about the Conservatives vs Liberals in Canada. Those are the actual party names.

 

[summerteeth]

Does one study make something an irrefutable fact? I think the truth is more complex then what you are suggesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ritable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/


And you are ignoring my other points, it seems like this idea that conservatives give more then liberals is used as a justification for some Republicans to be comfortable in demonizing the poor. Also going back to my Biblical parable, isn't conservatives bragging about this and using this as a political talking point, make this seem hollow? Did Jesus command his followers to brag about how charitable they are? Are you okay with that?

Well, I cited two studies the one from the Time Magazine article and the MIT study. You do realize that the Washington Post article is about the very study that I quoted? I don't know what it is, that journalists didn't actually read the whole study to understand it or if they deliberately twisted it to fit a narrative, but both the LA Times and the Post cited the study and seemed to have missed the mark. This is why people have lost faith in the media.

They keep ignoring this tidbit that is right there in the abstract if you click the link to the study:

the large bivariate relationship between giving and conservatism vanishes after adjusting for differences in income and religiosity.

Isn't that the whole point that Republicans donate more because of their faith?

I didn't ignore your other point. You shared an opinion of yours and it is seemingly based on your world view which is fine. I don't think anyone made that claim in this thread. I don't think anyone is bringing it up to brag though, I think people bring it up in defense of religion and churches. So the only reason I ignored your other point was because I didn't exactly feel it was particularly relevant.

 

[The Overlord]

Well, I cited two studies the one from the Time Magazine article and the MIT study. You do realize that the Washington Post article is about the very study that I quoted? I don't know what it is, that journalists didn't actually read the whole study to understand it or if they deliberately twisted it to fit a narrative, but both the LA Times and the Post cited the study and seemed to have missed the mark. This is why people have lost faith in the media.

They keep ignoring this tidbit that is right there in the abstract if you click the link to the study


Isn't that the whole point that Republicans donate more because of their faith?

I didn't ignore your other point. You shared an opinion of yours and it is seemingly based on your world view which is fine. I don't think anyone made that claim in this thread. I don't think anyone is bringing it up to brag though, I think people bring it up in defense of religion and churches. So the only reason I ignored your other point was because I didn't exactly feel it was particularly relevant.

But that just seems to me people are just conflating religious with conservative, there are left wing religious people.

Frankly I don't know you can square the idea that conservatives are more generous, with the speeches various Republicans have made about how poor people are just lazy, if poor people are just lazy, wouldn't giving them charity be a waste, according to their own logic?

This does come off as bragging, Republican politicians and pundits seem to use this idea as fodder for the idea that liberals are morally inferior to conservatives, which is rich from people who complain about liberal "elitism" all the time.

Also what about the mega church pastors who wants money to private jet? When conservatives give money to a church, how much if it goes to help the poor and how much goes to overhead or even unnecessary expenses (like that private jet)?

 

[SV Fan]

Also what about the mega church pastors who wants money to private jet? When conservatives give money to a church, how much if it goes to help the poor and how much goes to overhead or even unnecessary expenses (like that private jet)?

From what I posted above:

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

Now that being said you can probably find many good churches that use alot of cash received for good charitable work, while many places that are probably close to 0.

That's not what it said...

Page 9

a 2013 paper

In the previous section we showed that liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I consider myself a liberal, but both the Democratic and Republican Party I would say are both equally anti-science, but just in different areas. You forgot to mention besides the liberal anti-vaxxers, they are also extremely anti-GMO's as well.

Compare how other "Liberals" view the anti-vax folks just here on the Hype. They hardly make up a sizable part of those that would self describe under that term, same with anti-GMO types. Most call that foolishness out.

What's the polling on "Conservatives" that have issues with the science behind everything from evolution to climate change? Yeah... There's nothing equitable about the two sides on this. And as I said, Liberals don't embrace the anti-vax and anti-GMO types.

 

[The Overlord]

From what I posted above:



Now that being said you can probably find many good churches that use alot of cash received for good charitable work, while many places that are probably close to 0.

Exactly, it makes this whole thing more or less moot if the people going to the Church where the pastor wants a private jet say they are giving to charity if they help him get his jet. The religious right is filled with so many slimy hucksters, that I don't trust a lot of people in the movement to actually spend money on helping others vs. trying to get a bigger mansion. Sure some conservative church leaders are actually good people, but I don't think we should assume every dollar the religious right takes in actually goes to helping people.

I think a lot conservatives look at this study and draw some very board and generalized conclusions, but there some nuances that are being papered over.

 

[SV Fan]

Exactly, it makes this whole thing more or less moot if the people going to the Church where the pastor wants a private jet say they are giving to charity if they help him get his jet. The religious right is filled with so many slimy hucksters, that I don't trust a lot of people in the movement to actually spend money on helping others vs. trying to get a bigger mansion. Sure some conservative church leaders are actually good people, but I don't think we should assume every dollar the religious right takes in actually goes to helping people.

I think a lot conservatives look at this study and draw some very board and generalized conclusions, but there some nuances that are being papered over.

You never will get 100% bang for your buck when you donate to charities due to overhead costs, but churches for the most part are the worst bang for your buck if giving to help out others is your main reason for giving. All that being said I would put a large part of giving to a church on the same level as somebody donating to PBS or the local symphony(both which would be considered charity), basically you are giving to something you personally love in order to keep it going so there is a big sense of personal reasons for doing it.

 

[The Overlord]

You never will get 100% bang for your buck when you donate to charities due to overhead costs, but churches for the most part are the worst bang for your buck if giving to help out others is your main reason for giving. All that being said I would put a large part of giving to a church on the same level as somebody donating to PBS or the local symphony(both which would be considered charity), basically you are giving to something you personally love in order to keep it going so there is a big sense of personal reasons for doing it.

Sure that's fine, its their money, they can do what they like with it, but don't tell that mega church with the pastor who wants a private jet is doing it all it can to help the poor, people who give to that church are giving to that pastor's slush fund, not charity. A lot of greed and arrogance has slipped into the religious right, I don't trust them to do the right thing and I think giving them is huge gamble if you think it will actually help the needy.


I just dislike the moral arrogance that many conservatives get when they bring up this study, it ignores several nuances and seems to justify demonizing the poor on the part of many Republicans.

Mother Theresa is someone who has views I don't agree with, but I still admire her because she was in the trenches helping poor people, she is a way better person then some huckster like Pat Robertson, do people think the money they give him helps the poor. Robertson seems comparable with one of those money changers Jesus kicked out the temple.

 

[chaseter]

The Catholic Church is right up there in spend with United Way and the Salvation Army. Discounting the charitable work religious institutions do is asinine. All charities are rife with ridiculous overhead. The Goodwill CEO makes over $3m a year. The Clinton foundation spend has 32% going to travel, conferences, and salaries related to overhead and program expenses. That doesn't even include space. All charities need 'space' so the church building example above is misleading. Clinton's personal office, PERSONAL OFFICE, in Harlem was $400k per year.

Look at the top 50 worst charities in America (all with no religious name):
http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/

The Right gives more to charity then the left.

 

[SV Fan]

The Catholic Church is right up there in spend with United Way and the Salvation Army. Discounting the charitable work religious institutions do is asinine. All charities are rife with ridiculous overhead. The Goodwill CEO makes over $3m a year. The Clinton foundation spend has 32% going to travel, conferences, and salaries related to overhead and program expenses. That doesn't even include space. All charities need 'space' so the church building example above is misleading. Clinton's personal office, PERSONAL OFFICE, in Harlem was $400k per year.

When the average amount of money spent on actual helping people is 10-25%, that is terrible return on giving(assuming you give that money with the sole purpose of wanting to help people).

As for needing space for a church fair enough if you buy a simple building, but when you build the Fortress of Solitude like the church I posted above don't you think that a bit gody(pun intended). The LDS church could have easily got a church at half the price they paid for the one I posted and it would have been equipped enough to do the job then give the rest of that cash to actual charity. All that said it's a lovely piece of architecture

In the end I don't consider somebody giving money to a church on par with giving money to a reputable charity. Maybe you can consider X amount of that money actual charity(depending on the church you give it to), but I wouldn't count it as 100% or even 50%. If you give cash to something you have some form of direct benefit from, then it's not like giving to cash that you get 0 benefit from other then the joy of giving something.

Using me as an example I give over 1000 dollars in food items(plus abother 500 to other places) to a few places over the coarse of a year so who is getting a better bang for their buck in terms of actual charity for other people? Me or the person who give 5,000 to his church where only 10-25% gets used on actual charitable stuff. I also don't expect a tax writeoff so look at that as charity to Uncle Sam.

Look at the top 50 worst charities in America (all with no religious name):
http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/

Is this list even counting churches? You can't tell me there is not 1 single Church out there that makes millions of dollars and doesn't use 1 cent on helping people. There is a reason for this as well, because while most normal charities have to disclose their financial statements, Churches get a free pass on this and it's hard to get any information from most of them how exactly they use their money they receive for "charity"

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations

Tax information for charitable, religious, scientific, literary, and other organizations exempt under Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") section 501(c)(3).

Great for them they get all the benefits of running themselves like a charity without all the hassles of running like a charity. Personally I would love to see any politician try to feed me a load of bull why churches should get special treatment when it comes to disclosing finical records compared to other charities

 

[summerteeth]

From what I posted above:

Now that being said you can probably find many good churches that use alot of cash received for good charitable work, while many places that are probably close to 0.



Page 9

a 2013 paper

In the previous section we showed that liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income

I don't know what you are saying because the part you quoted and what page 9 says is that if you adjust for church attendance i.e. if you take a conservative that isn't very religious and a liberal that isn't very religious then they donate the same. If you don't adjust for church attendance and since more conservatives are more religious than liberals conservatives end up donating more. That's what the study finds that it's not conservatism that makes people donate more but that religiosity is a major factor.