Who Really Cares - Arthur Brooks

[ParanoiA]

Anyone heard of this book - Who Really Cares?

 

This guy, Arthur Brooks, has put together some detailed studies and discovered that conservatives are more compassionate and giving than liberals, in terms of charity and philanthropy.

 

In fact, one thing that surprises me is that religious conservatives give the most. I tend to see religious conservatives as exclusionary, stuffy types. You wouldn't think the same people who kick homosexuals out of their churches would actually care and give more to society.

 

And according to John Stossel, I'm in the category of folks that don't give a damn thing. I'm a selfish, middle class, cheapskate. If it wasn't true, I'd feel better about it...

[Saryctos]

not surprised at all. Most church groups have regular charity drives, canned goods, old clothes, christmas things...the list goes on.

 

I think it's all the air time that the extremists get that ruins the average perspective of church going, charity giving 'religious conservatives' appearing to be in the minority of religious mind sets.

[Sisyphus]

I wonder how the breakdown went. Like, how much was church-based vs. individual donations? Do conservative churches do more than liberal churches? What counts as "charity?" (i.e., does giving money to a church count?) How much of that money goes towards evangelizing? Is the implication of the title, that "conservatives care more" really valid? What's the discrepancy between purely humanitarian charity (where it's all about the receiving end) and evangelizing and fulfilling religious obligations, where it's all about the giving end and spreading ideas? Can the latter group really be said to "care?"

 

Just some thoughts...

[ParanoiA]

I wonder how the breakdown went. Like, how much was church-based vs. individual donations? Do conservative churches do more than liberal churches? What counts as "charity?" (i.e., does giving money to a church count?) How much of that money goes towards evangelizing? Is the implication of the title, that "conservatives care more" really valid? What's the discrepancy between purely humanitarian charity (where it's all about the receiving end) and evangelizing and fulfilling religious obligations, where it's all about the giving end and spreading ideas? Can the latter group really be said to "care?"

 

Just some thoughts...

 

Well, according to John Stossel, whom took the data from this book for his report, liberal and conservative churches were within a couple of percentage points of each other. I believe the conservative based were more apt to give money, whereas the liberal based were more likely to volunteer their personal time (which is a bit more noble I think).

 

None of the money donated to the church is being counted, just the money that actually goes to the charities or events - supposedly anyway. The religious givers are the most prolific givers.

 

What I find far more interesting is the rich and working poor that give. The rich have a tendency to prefer philanthropy over writing checks, seeming to prefer getting involved themselves in more of the process besides just handing over money and walking away. After listening to several different stories on different billionaires and what they're doing, I'm more impressed with that approach.

 

The working poor give the highest percentage compared with the middle class and rich. Not the leeching poor, the working poor. 20/20 compared a salvation army donation bucket at a high income, highly liberal area in San Francisco with the same set up in some lower income, smaller city or town and the lower income, blue collar town gave twice as much total money. I know that's not exactly scientific, but it's worth noting.

[Sisyphus]

Interesting. Allow me some armchair speculation...

 

Well, according to John Stossel, whom took the data from this book for his report, liberal and conservative churches were within a couple of percentage points of each other. I believe the conservative based were more apt to give money, whereas the liberal based were more likely to volunteer their personal time (which is a bit more noble I think).

 

That's more or less what I would expect, but it's only one of the things I was interested in in the liberal church vs. conservative church comparison. What I was wondering, in my cynically liberal way, was about the nature of the "charity" in each case, and whether I would consider it as such. For example, in my personal experience, I've been involved in charitable endeavors at a local, quite liberal church, involving stuff like gathering clothes for the poor, running soup kitchens, caring for elderly and sick members of the community, and even buying slaves in Africa (to free them, obviously!). I've also been in some more conservative churches, who seem to be much more focused on "bringing people to Christ," spending at least as much on Bibles as on food, etc. Surely they consider that charity, but I wouldn't.

 

What I find far more interesting is the rich and working poor that give. The rich have a tendency to prefer philanthropy over writing checks, seeming to prefer getting involved themselves in more of the process besides just handing over money and walking away. After listening to several different stories on different billionaires and what they're doing, I'm more impressed with that approach.

 

I assume this is a matter of means. You can only be a philanthropist if you've got gobs of disposable income, personal contacts, and the means to arrange your other affairs so you actually have time to get personally involved. But I agree, it's still admirable.

 

The working poor give the highest percentage compared with the middle class and rich. Not the leeching poor, the working poor. 20/20 compared a salvation army donation bucket at a high income, highly liberal area in San Francisco with the same set up in some lower income, smaller city or town and the lower income, blue collar town gave twice as much total money. I know that's not exactly scientific, but it's worth noting.

 

What's the distinction between working poor and "leeching poor?"

 

Anyway, that's pretty much what I would expect. The more one lives paycheck to paycheck, the more acutely aware one is of the possibility of really being in need of help, and the more actively sympathetic one is likely to be. My own anecdotal experience agrees with that reasoning, as well.

[ParanoiA]

I assume this is a matter of means. You can only be a philanthropist if you've got gobs of disposable income, personal contacts, and the means to arrange your other affairs so you actually have time to get personally involved. But I agree, it's still admirable.

 

And to actually spend that time. I'll be honest, if I was rich, I doubt I would spend any more time helping anyone than I do right now. But, I'd be more than happy to hand over gobs of dough to let other people spend the time. That is the most prevalent attitude as it is the middle class that gives very little at all - pathetic actually - and the majority is middle class. I'm in that bracket and I give squat.

 

I am impressed that any rich people would care at all, much less enough so to get involved with their time and money. Most of the charity comes from them since they earn and have, exponentially, the most money. They deserve respect for what they do.

 

I doubt most liberals would give them any credit, or very little anyway, while giving even less themselves. And I'm sure they would want you to forget about it when they're crying about tax breaks for the wealthy - or as I like to call it, tax breaks for the employers of the country.

 

 

What I was wondering, in my cynically liberal way, was about the nature of the "charity" in each case, and whether I would consider it as such.

 

I don't know. I would imagine there's plenty of things they consider charity that I wouldn't. Just like there's several things I would consider charity, that they wouldn't. That's just splitting hairs on giving and doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I don't think handing out bibles would be considered charity by anybody but religious folk, and I don't think the author is a church guy. But I don't know for sure.

 

What's the distinction between working poor and "leeching poor?"

 

Exactly what it sounds like. Stossel made a distinction between working poor families and government raised poor families. The entitlement trained poor don't give squat. The families that are poor because their jobs suck, while sticking with it and taking responsibility for themselves and their life give the highest percentage of anyone. Now that's nobility.