On the O'Reilly Factor: "Liberals Give Less Than Conservatives."

[FVZA_Colonel]

I am aware this topic has been discussed here in the past, but I hope you do not mind that I have brought this up. I was flipping through the channels just now, and saw O'Reilly giving one of his "commentaries." He basically said that "liberals might give less for reasons I do not care about," mentioning that John Stossel would be coming on later in the show, likely because of the 20/20 show Stossel devoted to the issue. I have seen articles about this study that purports to show that conservatives give far more than liberals do, but I am wondering if anyone has responded to this?

[Infinite Hope]

1. Sure, *maybe* in dollars, but not percentage of income. n/t

[Deja Q]

3. *DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner.

[Igel]

7. Actually, for each income group (from poverty level

to the topmost level) the claim is said to hold regardless of net dollar amount or percentage of income.

His data probably doesn't include a few large donations by wealthy liberals, but that would only sway the topmost income level.

I'd like to see where and how he got his data. (I'm waiting for the local library systems to get it, but I'm not holding my breath.)

[Infinite Hope]

35. There's no way to measure whether donations from families come from conservative or liberal families

anyway, so it's all a moot point. It's not like people are asked what their political affiliation is before donating. There aren't data anywhere that 1)takes into account ALL charitable donations made 2)what the political affiliation is.

[Roland99]

2. Considering the rwingnuts "give" via tithing, I wouldn't call them charitable.

How much of that tithing goes to cover the expansive costs of their behemoth amusement park-sized churches?

[FVZA_Colonel]

5. I am aware of this, and it is my suspicion that this is true.

However, I have also heard the claim made that this giving extends beyond just churches to other charities. This is probably something I should have mentioned in the original post, as this was something else I was wondering about.

[tinfoil tiaras]

6. if not fundie churches, then probably a bunch of anti-choice groups posing as "charities"

I only know one republican (who's quite moderate) who would even go near a homeless person. All the others have fled out of the big, bad city into the lily-white suburbs.

[Toots]

40. You heard this from Conservatives.......

You believe them? I would not believe John Stossel no matter what he said. He is a known LIAR just as most Conservatives are...

[Skittles]

8. THANK YOU

and how much of it is done from the hope they'll go to Heaven ranther than sheer compassion?

[Roland99]

13. Probably as much from guilt than anything.

[MichiganVote]

4. Well he does think we're all losers who are on welfare, so what does he expect?

Another blowhard looking for a miracle.

[Igel]

10. Who's "we"?

Democrats? I don't think he thinks he's a loser on welfare.

While I suspects he's not at the left end of the dem spectrum, he claims to be a Democrat; there are such, after all, so it's not impossible. That's one reason to take his claim seriously (not a reason to accept it, taking it seriously and believing it are two entirely different things); when he set out he said he assumed he was proving the "liberals care" and "party of empathy" memes, and said he didn't believe his results when he chunked the numbers.

The first few pages (available on Amazon) are a little strange; my first pass through them said "he's a conservative", but on my second pass through I realized he was balanced in his language (i.e., made at least the attempt not to piss off possible readers, or at least offend equally) and that the quotes he was taking issue with were almost all dem because, well, it's almost entirely dems who say the Democratic party is the party of empathy and they care.

[MichiganVote]

15. I believe I was speaking with tongue in cheek, not foot in mouth

Bill O' Reilly would call himself the devil and a saint on the same day if it paid him to do so. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least to have read he called himself a Democrat, a conservative or anything in between. I think the whole argument of who is naughtier and who is nice is pretty silly. Legislation for the good of people has been passed by both parties...in the past. And it's the "in the past" part that is the problem today. To me Bill O'Reilly and any of these other blowhard's chat up the population like a thrice divorced guy at the neighborhood bar. The longer they are on teh barstool (TV) the less sense they talk and the more lies they know.

[FVZA_Colonel]

16. The sad thing is that this is a part of the past that some like to ignore.

Great strides have been taken towards helping the impoverished in America, but when people with these nostalgic views of a "Great American Golden Age" (usually the 50's) tend to look back, they never bring up proposals such as this; those are usually conveniently forgotten.

[MichiganVote]

19. People in the past had some faulty beliefs too. In the mind's of some,,

public work's programs that provided services/facilities/or assistance to the families or children of the population at any income level were supposed to encompass an end to poverty, restore the health of the mentally ill, the young or the old, and engender nationalism. Then as now, VietNam, civil right's, the assassinations of public leaders and Watergate sort of messed up those ideas. In my view, we worked at cross purposes during the 60's and 70's as much as we are now.

The people in power today genuinely believe that the US is now no longer in need of nation building from within or nation preserving programs for the population. They believe the US has 'arrived' and that anything worth having is free to anyone who can pay for it. Public schools, public transportation, public recreation, public lands, vitually anything "public" is no longer needed for the good of the nation, its people, or its children. In fact, they believe all of these things have failed and will continue to fail.

[Igel]

34. I was assuming you were talking about the

author of the book.

O'Reilly just echoes. Others speak, and he reflects what they said: sometimes more loudly, sometimes garbled.

Actually, Brooks (the guy who made the claim in his recent book) throws out an interesting set of data, if it's reliable, and probably makes a plausible argument (of course, I'm guessing as to his argument from the table of contents; Amazon only lets you see so much through their 'see inside' links).

[donco6]

9. He needs to go reread "The Widow's Mite".

Then tell us who gives more.

[FVZA_Colonel]

11. There is something I just remembered.

I believe that when this was first being discussed, a study was posted here that disputed this conclusion. I believe it had purported to show that the division in charitable giving is more or less even across red and blue states. Are there any others such as this that anyone here at DU know of that I could read.

[Nitrogenica]

12. My Brother's in law's wife just sent us a pic of

O'Lielly and my Brother In Law in Iraq (Sgt Josh Collins, who was helping protect that ape).

I don't quite know what to say to her about this. I can't even define him as an American. He does not represent reality, or even America.

UHHHHGGHH!!!

It's a disturbing picture, but at leats they're not shaking hands.

[tinfoil tiaras]

14. It could be worse.

It could be your brother in law and Sean Hannity. Or your brother in law and Tony Snow. Now THAT would be disturbing. At least O'Lielly deviates from the Freeper line on the enviroment (somewhat) and the death penalty. That doesn't mean I like him, cause I dont. :)

[Warpy]

17. We certainly boast about it less

and that's where the gap is, I suspect.

[China_cat]

18. If they're basing it on income tax returns...the deductions taken

for charitable contributions, I think that they'd find that there's a lot of 'liberals' who don't give in order to get it back. An awful lot of us don't take the deduction. We don't feel like it's charity if we're getting any part of it back.

[sam sarrha]

23. i dont make enough to get the tax deduction.. i just gave 6 new DVD's to the Library about health an

the new Dalai Lamas ethics in the media talk.. i dont declare them..poor people dont get deductions.

[ripple]

20. We don't give less, we just don't give large sums as tax write-offs

I tend to question the methodology of the study. A lot of things qualify as charitable giving for tax purposes, however most of us wouldn't consider them charity in the classic sense.

Donating to a mega-church, an honorary memorial at a university, expensive tickets to political fundraisers, etc. aren't the types of things that normally come to mind when most people think of charitable giving.

I have a feeling that when it's all broken down, liberals give more to the people who need it the most.

[Raine]

21. CONservatives SHOULD give more

after the damage they have done with the way they vote they owe to society to give till it HURTS to make up for what they have done!! THEY DAMN WELL BETTER GIVE!!! :mad:

[Ioo]

22. Link to the Story - Devoid of Details, SHOCKER!

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

From the story

"Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood."

Here is more
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/a/257377.htm

[Nabia2004]

33. Nearly all the conservatives I know are selfish SOBs

When they give it's for the tax write off, charity is an economic tool for them.

I find this study very contrary to what I have witnessed all my life.

[jody]

24. O'Reilly probably includes donations to right wing religious groups in his

conservative groups.

It remains to be proved how much of their billions in tax-deductible gifts get to needy people.

[and-justice-for-all]

25. O'lielY is a spotted ass....

...He is paid to LIE to people. O'lielY, Hannity and Coulter are an axis of evil. Lying bastards!

[freeplessinseattle]

26. That study was solely based on self-reports

and for some reason I am inclined to think that some respondents were less than honest.

[NewJeffCT]

27. The charitable giving thing has been debunked on DU several times

The list is very flawed that they are referring to - it is from the College of Philanthropy and is based solely in ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS. The problem is that in wealthier BLUE states like Mass, Conn, NJ, etc, a very large percentage of the populace itemizes. However, in the poorer RED states, itemizing is much less common. They did a study of the the calculation at (I think) Boston College and determined that if everybody that itemized in Mass gave 100% of their income to charity, they would still finish well down the list.

I'll see if I can find the links (I had a LTTE published on this a few years back) - but, I'm beat after a long Christmas day.

[FVZA_Colonel]

29. If you find the LTTE, please do post it.

If you can't I certainly understand, but I am definitely interested in reading it.

[NewJeffCT]

38. Here is a link to the study

It has New York, Utah, California & Connecticut as the most charitable states.

This is a PDF of the press release. It has the listing of the 50 states.

http://www.bc.edu/research/swri/meta-elements/pdf/bcpressrelease.pdf

And, a bigger PDF of the whole report.

http://www.bc.edu/research/swri/meta-elements/pdf/givingindices.pdf

[FVZA_Colonel]

42. Thank you for posting those links.

I'll be sure to take a look at them.

[NewJeffCT]

44. No problem

The LTTE was from about 2 years ago, so I don't have a copy of lying around anymore, and I likely had it stored on a work PC from a previous job.

[pnorman]

28. I recall waaaaay back, when Reagan was gov. of California.

He screamed bloody murder, when the Charitable Contributions from his tax returns got out into public discussion. Needless to say, it was far from flattering.

I imagine that those O'Reilly figures, if they have ANY "validity" at all, consists largely of those $Billions in "protection money" that those mega-churches rake in.

pnorman

[flowomo]

30. new book about it:

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm


Charity's Political Divide
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
By Ben Gose

It's been a tough month for conservatives, with the Republican Party losing control of both houses of Congress, but a new book being released this week may help brighten their spirits.

In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

[dogman]

31. As Robert Reich asked when on a show with Brooks,

who asks what your ideology is when you give blood? I believe this is just another RW fabrication.

[NI4NI]

32. or your politics on an income tax return either?

[kevinbgoode]

36. So did O'Lielly talk about how much HE gives to charity?

Just wondering. . .after all, it would be quite interesting to see the top 100 list of favorite charities of con-servatives. . .

And Bill should have been talking all about how much he gives. . .

[NewJeffCT]

39. See my posts above - the list O'Reilly is using has serious flaws

The College of Philanthropy list that O'Reilly is referring to is seriously flawed. It bases charitable contributions only on itemized deductions. In wealthier states like Connecticut & Mass, a much greater percentage of people itemize than they do in poorer states like Alabama & Missippi. So, the amount of charity is spread over a much greater percentage of people in the wealthier states.

Boston College did extensive research and proved the flaws in the list and came up with a much better representation of how generous each state was in the past year.

[Nobody]

37. "Reasons I don't care about"? That could mean anything

At no time when I gave money or time was I asked my political affiliation. I usually give time, because money is very tight for me. Even so, last year I sent money to help the people displaced by Katrina and didn't claim a penny of it.

I didn't see the study, what was the methodology? Did they only look at tax returns or did they have some other means of identifying political stances?

And just what counts as charity? Can I count the carpool with a rider who is ineligible for a drivers license? Can I count the food shelf donations at the supermarket where no one may see you add the canned food to the container? Are they only counting high-profile donations or do they count the simple things such as helping a friend find a job or writing off the money you loaned someone because they now work three jobs and still have a hard time paying the bills? How about helping someone paint their house before the housing inspector fines them? How about stopping on your way somewhere and helping someone push their car out of the ditch? Can any of this be quantified and does it even appear in the study? I bet most people here have done some of these things. And I haven't even gotten to "official" things like writing checks for homeless shelters, and volunteering for Habitat for Humanity.

Seems as though all of the above I have witnessed but there's no quantifiable quality to any of it. A job lead might take seconds but the value is immense if a job results from it. How can you count a carpool when you're going that way anyway?

Where does he get the numbers? Or O'Reilly's blowing smoke in everyone's faces.

[gatorboy]

41. If conservatives are so charitable.

Then why have they shown such an ugly streak regarding nationwide healthcare, the rebuilding of New Orleans, ect...?

[gollygee]

43. Republicans define "charitable giving" differently

I give money to Planned Parenthood each year, and to a local GLBT organization. I consider those to be charitable donations. I discussed this issue with someone who is very religious, and he said that those don't qualify as charity.

Also, this guy I know assumed that anyone who gave money through a church, or donated to a religious charitable organization, was conservative. That's a pretty big assumption.

[rebel with a cause]

45. Shouldn't it be

Liberals brag less about giving than Conservatives.

[LeftHander]

46. Conservatives give for the tax credit.....nt

[SmokingJacket]

47. I don't believe it.

Actually, no one knows how much I give to charity, because I don't report it most of the time. But I give every month to Doctors Without Borders, annually to several other charities, and sporadically to still others.

And no one knows how I vote, either.

[lies and propaganda]

48. The right does donate more Falafels!!

and loofahs too, i bet.