Another study confirms red staters are more generous than blue staters

Posted by: ST on August 20, 2012 at 5:53 pm

Via Politico:

Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday.

The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.

The eight states whose residents gave the highest share of their income — Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia — all backed McCain in 2008. Utah leads charitable giving, with 10.6 percent of income given.

And the least generous states — Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — were Obama supporters in the last presidential race. New Hampshire residents gave the least share of their income, the Chronicle stated, with 2.5 percent.

“The reasons for the discrepancies among states, cities, neighborhoods are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity,” the study’s authors noted.

But it’s not just about politics — “religion has a big influence on giving patterns.”

I reference this article not to brag about the act of conservatives giving in and of itself, but to point out once again how liberals shamelessly lie about the generosity of conservatives. How many times have you heard or read a liberal talking about how conservatives want to “starve the poor”, “kick old people to the curb”, etc? They say that because they believe government should be allowed to confiscate whatever amount of money they need so bureaucrats can best decide how YOUR money is going to “help” others. This is one of the many problems I have with the liberal philosophy on the role of government in our lives, which I wrote about back in 2009 when it was reported how little the Bidens donated to charity:

I don’t doubt the Bidens have given generously of their time to worthy causes of their choosing. The fact that they have given so little of their money to charitable causes doesn’t really bother me. What does bother me is that Joe Biden and so many of his liberal pals in city, state, and federal government don’t mind being more generous with MY money than they are with their own. They’re famous for declaring that they are “more charitable” towards others than conservatives, but the dirty little secret is that their “generosity” involves taxing Americans higher and higher so that they (the government) can decide best where that money goes. That’s not “generosity.” Where I come from, excessive taxation and redistrubution of it is called “theft” – and socialism.

And while we’re on this topic, let’s not forget that this is not the first in depth report that confirms what we already knew about fellow conservatives:

George Will wrote in March 2008 on the “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” book done by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks.  Some of the findings:

– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

– Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

– People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

From December 2004 – “Generosity Index” Mirrors Red State-Blue State Divide:

The Catalogue for Philanthropy has ranked the fifty states on their relative generosity, comparing each state’s average itemized charitable deductions with its average adjusted gross income (based on 2002 IRS data).

The 50-state ranking has a decided Red State-Blue State flavor: 27 of the 30 “most generous” states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the “most generous” states), while 17 of the 20 “least generous” states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the “least generous” states):

Make sure to check out the graphs.

Next time a liberal gets snippy with you about conservatives supposedly being “scrooges” when it comes to helping out their fellow citizens, point them to these studies – and then ask them if they are talking about personal charity or government “charity.” And then watch as the steam starts to slowly blow out of their ears as they get more and more mad by the second … like they usually do when confronted with inconvenient truths.

:D

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 Responses to “Another study confirms red staters are more generous than blue staters”

Comments

  1. Phineas says:

    This reminds me of the relief efforts after the Indonesian earthquake and tsunami of (iirc) 2006: some Norwegian jerk UN official criticized the US as “stingy” for not immediately giving lots of money to the UN for relief efforts. He was forced to backtrack when it was pointed out to him that a) the US had *immediately* dispatched 2 carrier battlegroups to assist in rescue and relief (those cost millions a day to run) and b) US private donors had already given tens of millions to relief aid, there was no sign of it letting up, and the amount Americans gave out of their own pockets dwarfed that given by the peoples of the next several countries combined.

    Not coincidentally, America is also a Center-Right nation.

    Conservatives don’t object to lending a helping hand, just being suckered for a handout.

  2. Drew the Infidel says:

    According to the CDC those blue states listed as least generous also rank at the very rock bottom of the teen pregnancy rate. There must be a lot of frustrated, disgruntled, and unhappy folks in that neck of the woods with nothing better to do than screw with conservatives over generosity.

  3. Great White Rat says:

    So it’s basically reinforcing what I said last Friday in the thread about Obama’s refusal to help his indigent brother.

    No big surprise. Liberals don’t like giving their own possessions to help the less fortunate. They like having the government confiscate your possessions and giving them to the poor. That way they feel so much better about themselves.

  4. Zachriel says:

    The study has certain flaws. Charity is defined by tax returns, so it includes tithes. Also, it only includes those who itemize deductions and those who earn more than $50,000 per annum.
    http://philanthropy.com/article/How-The-Chronicle-Compiled-Its/133667/

  5. Carlos says:

    Nice try, Zach, but your argument doesn’t wash.

    First, let’s clear up a misconception: What the government does is not charity (defined as “love” in older texts). Stealing from one group of people to support another group of people isn’t “charity,” it is a shameless and crappy way to buy votes because it is the thief who defines who needs that “charity.”

    And second, it wouldn’t matter how far down the economic ladder one went to get the statistics. As a matter of fact, generally speaking, the further one goes down the economic ladder, the higher the percentage of whatever income one has, from whatever source (yes, even government handouts), that goes to true charity. It is money, time, goods, that is given out of love and concern, not fear that a government agent will come knocking on one’s door.

    So get over yourself, sir, and face the facts: even if you yourself are not stingy and hateful of those less fortunate, generally speaking those of your brethren of similar political philosophy are much more so than those of us who truly care enough for our less fortunate and show it by donating.

  6. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: Stealing from one group of people to support another group of people isn’t “charity,” it is a shameless and crappy way to buy votes because it is the thief who defines who needs that “charity.”

    We weren’t discussing social welfare programs. They aren’t charity either, which is voluntarily giving to the needy. Tithing, while included as a charity for tax purposes, generally supports the infrastructure, staff and operating expenses of churches. Building crystal cathedrals is not what most people mean by charity.

  7. Carlos says:

    And using crystal cathedrals as typical use of tithes is fairly disingenuous, don’t you think? I suppose I could do the same by naming several well-known “charities” whose bottom lines leave less than 10% (a couple approaching <5%) of donated funds for the stated purposes, or point out that the overall actual taxpayer funds reaching the theoretical impoverished victims of federal and state welfare programs isn't any better, but that would not be disingenuous, just off-topic.

    The point is a difference in philosophy about who is best able to take care of the needy among us, and the study points to the knuckle-dragging red states as being more in tune with a philosophy of community help than government dependence.

  8. Great White Rat says:

    As usual, Zach misses the point in his rush to denigrate people of faith. The point is that conservatives willingly and generously part with their own wealth to support others. Liberals, on a whole, do not.

    It’s instructive of another trait of leftists: they always like to accuse us of what they do on a regular basis. Churches are the targets of his venom because they use donations for “infrastructure, staff, and operating expenses”. How horrible! But he’s perfectly satisfied with forcibly taking your money and mine and using it for….infrastructure, staff, and operating expenses for wasteful wealth redistribution agencies.

    Meanwhile, Zach deliberately ignores the food and clothing drives that churches conduct, hospitals they build (although I’m sure Zach would say they didn’t build that), and organized trips to impoverished countries to build homes and schools for the people there.

    Now. I’m sure Zach – if he were to ever actually respond to a post and depart from his usual style of mindlessly repeating whatever the Daily Kos meme is – would say that government does all those good things too. It’s debatable, but for the moment let’s grant that. The difference is that conservatives do their giving freely because they want to help others. Liberals do not.

    Oh, and by the way, about churches and using donations for “staff”. I know you’ve probably never been near a church (except maybe the First Church of Global Warming and Discount Carbon Credits Outlet) but there are many people who volunteer their time to help implement those good works. That’s the other half of the equation – conservatives also donate much more time, as well as money, to charitable causes, than you leftists.

    Now go ahead and reprise your same screed again. It’s what we’ve come to expect of you.

  9. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: And using crystal cathedrals as typical use of tithes is fairly disingenuous, don’t you think?

    Tithing generally supports the infrastructure, staff and operating expenses of churches. Some may go to charitable giving, but it’s all lumped together in the study.

    Carlos: I suppose I could do the same by naming several well-known “charities” whose bottom lines leave less than 10% (a couple approaching {5%) of donated funds for the stated purposes,

    Here’s a smattering:

    Organization, amount spent on programs excluding administrative and promotional expenses

    American Red Cross, 92%
    American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 86%
    Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, 91%
    Muscular Dystrophy Association, 75%
    Habitat for Humanity International, 74%
    Catholic Relief Services, 94%
    Doctors Without Borders USA, 89%
    Save the Children, 91%
    United States Fund for UNICEF, 91%
    Jewish National Fund U.S., 81%
    Special Olympics, 83%
    National Council on Aging, 95%

    Carlos: The point is a difference in philosophy about who is best able to take care of the needy among us, and the study points to the knuckle-dragging red states as being more in tune with a philosophy of community help than government dependence.

    Perhaps, but the study doesn’t show that.

    Great White Rat: As usual, Zach{riel} misses the point in his rush to denigrate people of faith. The point is that conservatives willingly and generously part with their own wealth to support others.

    There’s nothing wrong with giving to your church, but it isn’t what most people mean by charity, that is, giving to the needy. Look at the top of the list, Utah.
    http://www.mormonshare.com/sites/default/files/images/mormon-temple-salt-lake.jpg

    Great White Rat: Churches are the targets of his venom …

    Nope.

    Great White Rat: deliberately ignores the food and clothing drives that churches conduct, hospitals they build

    Nope.

    Great White Rat: about churches and using donations for “staff” … but there are many people who volunteer their time to help implement those good works.

    Yup. And that’s not counted in the study either whether organized through a church or the local soup kitchen.

  10. Great White Rat says:

    Here’s a smattering:

    Organization, amount spent on programs excluding administrative and promotional expenses

    So? Are you claiming that conservatives don’t donate to those organizations in addition to anything they give to churches?

    Except for maybe the ACLU, which isn’t a charity at all, but a political organization, except maybe to far leftists like yourself. And of course UNICEF, like the UN as a whole, stopped being anything except a tool of collectivist regimes. Must be the reason you like it.

    I know it’s useless to expect you to vary one iota from your usual mthodology of simply repeating yourself, but do you have anything to prove that leftists give as much to organizations like the Red Cross than conservatives?

    So far you’ve shown nothing to dispute the study except to (a) whine that the bad ole conservatives also give to churches and you don’t like them, and (b) complain that the study is flawed because it only sampled people who itemize deductions, which disproves nothing in the study.

  11. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: Must be the reason you like it.

    Has nothing to do with liking it. Carlos suggested that actual program spending was much lower, so we just check a few common examples to see.

    Great White Rat: So far you’ve shown nothing to dispute the study except to (a) whine that the bad ole conservatives also give to churches and you don’t like them, and (b) complain that the study is flawed because it only sampled people who itemize deductions, which disproves nothing in the study.

    The question concerned whether tithes should be counted, such as money spent on cathedrals. We never said the conclusion was wrong, only that the study didn’t demonstrate the point.