Ezra, great analysis. And much needed. I am considered a liberal-left guy, at least on economics and political participation, and yet I find that because I am a synagogue president, and active in my synagogue, I am giving much of my "charity" money to the synagogue, not homeless shelters or farm workers as we used to do. Right now, we're just trying to survive economically, and so we significantly lowered charity giving, though not activism.

I also agree with you that, for example, Walter Annenberg's massive donations in the last years of his life is not sufficiently indicative of whether liberals or conservatives have more "compassion." It is at least as much a guilty conscience or monument-building as anything else. Sometimes I have read that wealthy folks do this to avoid giving to relatives or family they consider greedy and preening.

A last comment: As I used to respond to a now no longer "conservative" uncle, who used to taunt me to let homeless people move in with my wife and me: "You, uncle, are the one who opposes government programs to shelter and feed the homeless. Therefore, you and other conservatives should invite the homeless into your homes as an application of your belief in private, not government charity." He is a generous person, though, and my relationship with him helped me understand that liberal or conservative tells us very little about a person's values or compassion.

the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute

Leaning? Leaning??

Uh, let's not forget that Republicans are disproportionately wealthy compared to Democrats. They're also more likely to have the kind of taxes (income, not payroll) that you can lower with charitable donations, and they're more likely to itemize, which is how you take advantage of this tax break.

How much of this "charity" is Republicans taking advantage of a tax break that benefits them disproportionately?

As a fraction of income, the working poor give more to charity than any other class.

Is Brooks claiming that the working poor are conservative?

There also seems to be a confusion between total amounts and amounts as fraction of income.

As a side note to all this, I don't hate charity and I do donate a fair bit.

However, what I *do hate* is the notion that anyone in a civilised country should be dependent on private charity for the basics. That someone should receive daily sustenance, or decent medical care, at the whim of the rich is for me a failure of that society to treat all it's members properly.

Just a guess (based on some experience): more liberals than conservatives work for nonprofits, and therefore have lower incomes and less money to donate to charities. But those nonprofits are actively working to improve people's lives.

Churches spend far more on administration than any decent non-profit. During our church's last "stewardship" drive, I asked what the rough breakdown for spending was. Staff was by far the largest expenditure, followed by the nursery. Benevolence was way down the list.

So, if you're really looking at value for the money, churches are a very inefficient way to give.

I have made this argument many times. Someone needs to do a study to analyze how much "church giving" goes to benevolency programs and how much "liberal giving" goes to those issues. Of course, benevolence giving is a definition, but if we could define that as giving to those who need it, not institutional support (whether church or liberal institutions), then we might come up with a true definition of "charity" giving. Hey, you think the American Prospect could do that kind of survey?

Interesting comment there from J about church administration.
When I was a kid, the grounds around the church were taken care of by a rotating schedule of church volunteers. Now they pay a professional groundskeeper several hundred dollars a month to do it. Also when I was a kid, the minister and his family lived in a modest brick home next to the church. Now the minister lives in a friggin McMansion somewhere on the edge of town and the modest brick house is a "church office" full of old Xmas decorations and paperwork, and a professional secretary on salary that answers the phone and handles payroll for the staff.
Heck, there's even a professional maid service that comes around and vacuums and empties the trash, another job that used to be done by church member volunteers. All of this must cost loads of money every month.

A Christmas anecdote: while I'm basically a collapsed Catholic, my mother-in-law wanted to go to midnight Mass last year, so I took her to the local bells'n'smells church.

She had her check book out for the offertory procession, which surprised me: although I'm not familiar with the idiosyncracies of American Catholicism, I think of the offertory plate as a cash-only deal. Apparently, at her upscale Baptist church, giving by check is the done thing, so that it's easier to tot up the amount that gets claimed back on the income tax return.

Sure enough, though, everyone in church was (in best twice-a-year Catholic fashion) sticking twenties into the baskets.

There also seems to be a confusion between total amounts and amounts as fraction of income.

I believe the phrase "widow's mite" is relevant here.

So Ebenezer Scrooge was a liberal?

And frankly, the definition of "charity" in the US is so broad as to be near-meaningless. The AEI itself is a 501(c)(3), just like TAP. So Arthur Brooks is a charity case, and wingnut welfare is technically charitable giving.

(Though wingnut welfare cases whine about Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(3) status, they don't whine about their own)

As for tax law, remember how Dick Cheney took advantage of the post-Katrina lifting of the 50% AGI cap on deductible charitable donations in order to offset the exercise of Halliburton stock options? In short, he donated about $7m and got a $2m refund. Oh, and those donations weren't to Katrina relief efforts.

I just wanted to chime in on a few things.

Anonymice,

Your comment on non-profits bothers me. I've worked for, and been much exposed to, many non-profits and I can tell you that they are in such middle ground between the private sector and the public that they are generally hocked to the gills in waste, ill-management, and fostering appearances rather than focusing on actually helping. I've seen them spend 50-60 dollars per person on lunches and dinners for employees and executives. Something simply being a non-profit, even if they have a good public image, doesn't impress me. I've seen too much of the hypocrisy and waste of non-profits.

And as a response to J's comment that Churches spend more on administration than most non-profits, that may be true for many churches, but my faith, THE MORMON FAITH, has an unpaid lay clergy. The administration of the Mormon Church throughout the world is carried out by individuals who do not do it for compensation. We have one of the most effective and self sustaining and effective welfare programs and humanitarian programs in the world. We were the first people on the ground after Katrina and many other disasters. We've sent tons upon tons of a food specially formulated for the limitations placed on digestion brought on by starvation to Ethiopia this year. We have many married couples who, at their own expense, travel the world on humanitarian missions.

I think one of the biggest things missed by anyone I've seen on this is not the amount of money given, not even the percentage of income per se. Not that those things aren't important, but what's more so is the "bang for the buck" What does your 1000 dollar donation do if my 100 dollar donation saves more lives or empowers more people? or lasts longer temporally? And is there anything said for the sustainability and reliability of efforts? What of all the unpaid hours of service rendered? What of professionals traveling the world? What of things like our "Perpetual Education Fund" that are run without the cost of any administrative overhead that are creating perpetually sustainable, and perpetually growing reserves that provide ultra low interest loans to educate and empower impoverished people all over the world?

The question asked here by Ezra "Mormons tithe 10 percent a week to their church. But is that charitable giving? Or is it a membership fee? How much of it goes to anti-poverty programming? How much to church administration?" is also the wrong question. Look at effectiveness, then look at sustainability then look at efficiency. Those things, before any dollar amount, will tell you far more about who is 'giving' more or less. We need to get away from the false concept of thinking we can properly evaluate the worth via applying a monetary quantification that really means anything.

In Utah we spend less per pupil on education than is spent anywhere in the nation. If you were only using that metric you'd say that we didn't care about education. But our tax payers send a larger percentage of their taxes and income to the public education system than ANY OTHER state's tax payers do as either a percentage of their income OR as a percentage of the taxes they pay. But all of that means nothing if you don't look at the system's output. What kind of students are we producing? We're producing above average graduates and doing it with far fewer resources than the extremely high per pupil expenditures found in California or in New York or in DC.

Look at the actual impacts RATHER than this wrong headed look at money balance sheets or per person monetary giving. Look at the efficacy and efficiency and staying power of institutions, but most of all at their fruits.

Good points, Ezra. If you're interested, another professor at Syracuse University (where Arthur Brooks taught before accepting the job at AEI) wrote a response to Brooks' book, challenging Brooks' claims on similar grounds, most generally how we define "caring," discussing issues such as liberal support for broad government programs that address issues such as poverty, etc. (Stonecash, Jeffrey M. "Saving Us from Liberals: A Commentary on Who Really Cares," The Forum: Vol. 5 : Iss. 3, Article 14, 2007 ) Here is a link to the article:

http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol5/iss3/art14/

(I think you might have to do some annoying guest login thing to actually read it, unfortunately.)

Similarly, here are the results of a poll conducted by the same professor, examining the issue you raise about what exactly we consider charity. While I do think donating money to a college counts as charity, as education is important in a general sense, even if specific instances of giving are rather elitist, it is of course quite far removed from feeding someone who is hungry, and concerned with different issues (social welfare in a very general sense vs concern for say, economic inequality). Anyway, here is a survey that looks at this issue and considers the extent to which liberals and conservative care about the issue of inequality more specifically than just "charitable giving."

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/programs/maxwellpoll/reports/PollBrief.pdf

Brooks book actually does slice the data fairly thinly. He definitely finds that religion is the biggest driver in giving, not wealth or political ideology. And he also teases out that secular conservatives are the stingiest of all groups, followed closely behind by secular liberals. There just happen to be more secular liberals than secular conservatives. I don't see how Brooks has made some grievous error because conservatives are trumpeting his findings. I hasten to add that I think it's a good thing that Brooks is taking over at AEI. AEI as it is presently constructed is not merely right leaning, it is hack breeding ground. Hopefully he is able to instill a little more rigor and openness into their research.

Maybe another thing to factor in is the portion of people on the left/the right who do nonprofit work rather than having a lucrative career that provides them with lots of money to throw around.

I'm a public interest lawyer from an Ivy law school and earn probably less than 20 percent of what I'd be making if I'd gone to a big firm. Does the $200,000 I'm giving up in income this year count as charitable giving?

And, needless to say, my lower pay leaves me with a lot less to donate. (Setting aside the belief that much of what we leave to charity should be addressed by public policy...)

Another aspect that could be explored is in 'charitable' giving to the arts and its associated direct rewards to the givers.

I suspect you could dine out everynight in New York City just going from charitable art event to symphony event or whatever. And while I think you only get to deduct the amount of the donation over the 'cost' of the meal or whatever, there is plenty of room there for finagling. I doubt the IRS is going around to audit the price of the fois grois and the true cost of the services and utilities to put these kind of events on, the question of how much these events clear as opposed to how much is deducted for attending them is pretty opague. And this I suspect by design. To say nothing of the tangible benefits you get in reduced admission or special seating for 'Sponsors'. And don't even get me started on the social aspects and contact making. Bernie Madoff got pretty good value for money contributing to charities over the years. Talk about casting your bread on the waters. Until the hurricane hit he was getting plenty of loaves floating back.

"I give millions to charity and all I get is my name at the top of various plaques and universal entry to high society. (Plus a hefty tax break)"

We can call it the Ken Lay defense.

Plus, I think this study is based on what people say they give, not on actual numbers. I suspect conservatives lie more about this, because they want to be seen as charitable even as they shaft half the country with their bigotry, terrible economic policies that reward the rich and impoverish many, and support policies that torture and kill people around the world.

Well Anonymous at 1:19 was me. The commenting system choked on the original length of the comment which went on here:
________________________

As for the Mormon church they get widespread praise for Conservatives for 'taking care of their own'. But I have to wonder is the typical ward or stake really spends an equivalent proportion of their tithe supporting the non-churched poor in their states as they do on their own members who need temporary or permanent help. If they don't it is just a kind of elegant method for dodging your full social justice requirements.

Same for Southern Baptists and some of the non-demonimational mega-churches. You get your Crystal Cathedrals, but what is in it for me that I should be paying taxes while you are deducting 'offerings'?

And this is not just a left or right thing. I don't know about this year but for many years Al Sharpton did not pay taxes. Because he had no income and only wore clothes lent him by others. Kind of odd that those lenders had the EXACT same body size as Al. Because you don't get that fit buying suits off the rack. These is plenty of this kind of activity going around. It is why the Reverend Moon ended up in Federal Prison for a while.

PLUS. Unless you itemize you don't get a break anyway. How many working class people pay enough in charitiy to exceed a $5350 (single) and $10,700 (joint) standard deduction? Well the ones that got fooled into a 2/28 ARM maybe, they got PLENTY of deductable interest to go along with whatever the squeeze out in church offerings. The rest of them, well not so much.

Increasingly our tax system is set up to give the upper middle class and the upper class deductions for purchases and activities they would have made anyway. "Let's buy a high end computer for our college student out of our tax sheltered education account on our way to our box seats at the symphony! Let's do! And while we are at it stop at the fundraiser at the MOMA, they have an hosted bar and a nice buffet. After all Uncle Sam is giving us a 35% discount right off the top"

Ezra

Mormons don't give tithing once a week, some might, but its not required to. and no one gets kicked out or excommunicated for not paying tithing.

Apart from tithing, Mormons are encouraged to give fast offerings, which are money offerings equal to the cost of the meals consumed during fasting. That money is used to help out the less fortunate members of the church.

Apart from that, many Mormons volunteer at canneries making food that helps out the needs of the people in the community, non mormon and mormon alike.

Aside from that, many mormons make more donations both monetary and in the form of goods which are used in the community and shipped to many countries throughout the world.

COUNTRIES RECEIVING HUMANITARIAN AID SINCE 1985 165

HUMANITARIAN CASH DONATIONS SINCE 1985 $259.8 million

VALUE OF HUMANITARIAN MATERIAL ASSISTANCE SINCE 1985 $750.9 million

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/statistical-information

Tithing
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e141f73c28d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

the charitable work that the mormons and other religious groups do is laudable and should not be denigrated, but the real question is whether the heavy reliance on private charity helps the poor more than support from the government. one other topic in the kristoff column was a comparison of charitable giving among various western countries, in which the US came out on the high end and france came out on the low end, even allowing for the fact that france has no charitable deduction and much higher tax rates. by any measure of material well being the poor in france are better off than the poor in the US. everyone has health care and extremes of wealth are not as marked. i think the emphasis on private charity in the US results in starvation of the public sector support systems for the poor.

And don't forget in-kind donations and volunteer work. How likely is that to show up on the donors' tax forms?

I don't take tax deductions for charitable contributions because charity isn't a substitute for my civic responsibility. Contributions to my church are not charity; they're part of my communal obligation. I don't give blood because I'm a meat-eater who lived in Western Europe and I guess the Red Cross is convinced I'm going to donate mad cow disease along with my platelets. Charity is not a substitute for social justice and responsibility. It's icing on the cake. And I know a whole lot of liberals who feel and act the same way I do.

Ezra, you're spot on: arguing about this is antithetical to the concept. We can all do more and probably should, but it should supplement or complement our civic duty to our fellow citizens, not replace it.

This is a needed post Ezra,

I think the % of disposable income needs to be normalized when putting forth numbers like this. Compassion and self sacrifice are intimately intertwined in all major religions...but in this piece...not at all.

Why?

How do we account for anonymous cash donations...please explain?

Why?

If six people in a room have an average income of 20,000 and Bill Gates walks in...what is the average now?

Also pertinent in this discussion is, who takes/gets more illegitimate tax deductions, tax shelters, more like to lobby for "special" tax deductions, more likely to serve as care givers, police, fireman, soldiers and donate time. Since these numbers will reflect badly on the rich..they're thrown out like so much dishwater, but is man dying to defend you really that much less of a sacrifice than say...donating to the Heritage Foundation or to the local Opera, Symphony or Ballet?

Why?

Picking one number that make the rich not look like a bunch asshole is an old ruse. Just look at the conflating of federal income tax bracket and actual tax paid as a percentage of income...did I mention illegitimate tax deductions?

To make Charity a real sacrifice and thus admirable, remove the effing tax deduction....oh, and anything with your name on it is not charity, it's self aggrandizement..and should be treated as such.

Unless you itemize you don't get a break anyway. How many working class people pay enough in charitiy to exceed a $5350 (single) and $10,700 (joint) standard deduction?

I whole-heartedly agree with almost everything you say, and it may be a minor point, but there are other deductions that can, for some less-well-off people, push them over the standard deduction, the main one being state and local taxes. Years ago, in fact, when I wasn't making all that much and was renting and didn't make any charitable contributions because I couldn't afford to, my local income tax alone was more than the standard deduction, but then I lived in Washington, DC.

I don't think church dues should count as charity. Churches are multimillion dollar businesses and they should be taxed accordingly.

The Kristof article makes it clear that the real divide is the religious over the secular which eclipses the difference between left and right. It also makes it clear that conservatives give more to secular charities (by a hair) than liberals so could we can it with the knee jerk prejudice that it's all going to inefficient churches?

If you want to win the charity race, a better line of query would be to ask why are there so few religious liberals? The collapse of leftie religious types is the real problem in the ideological charity wars.

Bruce Webb. As a member of the Mormon faith who's had significant involvement with our welfare program I can tell you that a significant amount, if not a majority of our aid in my experience goes to people who are not members of our faith. One of my friends who served a mission for our faith in St Petersburg Russia translated between a local Russian Leader and someone from our church's governing body a conversation in which they emphasized the need to be liberal with all who are in need regardless their situation with respect to our Church.

Truly pathetic.

Liberals can't even take constructive criticism. They're never wrong and everyone else is.

Liberals really do give less and so what -- its nothing new. Its part and parcel of their their mindset: be generous with other people's money.

one of the issues that i have with religous organizations that do charitable work is the fact that so many times the charitable offerings are accompanied by proselytizing.

charity that is given by a religion with no intent or attempt to convert is truly charity; when it is given with attempts to convert the recipient to the offerer's faith system, it is really as much a marketing scheme as anything.

that's why i have trouble considering all money donated to churches as being "charitable" donations; too much of it, if not spent on church administration, is spent on marketing in the form of proselytizing needy recipients of charity.

(something that secular charities simply don't do.)

As for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in addition to the valuable volunteer work they do, don't forget the ad campaigns funded by those tax-deductible charitable donations.

In Britain, tax-free charitable donations through Gift Aid are handled differently: if you make the appropriate declaration, which can be done when you donate, the Treasury tops up the donation to cover the basic rate of income tax. (You can claim back 18% if you pay at the higher rate.)

Methinks the liberals doth protest too much.....

Ezra's completely on target. The data simply does not support conservative's claims to being more charitable, for the reasons Ezra points out. "We're generous! We're generous!" shout conservatives. One suspects it is the conservatives that protest too much.

Money given to, say, missionary work would not be counted as charity by liberals -but items like this (and paying for salaries and buildings, etc.) are the bulk of expenses for most churches. There are some megachurches with minimal social justice programs, just as there are some with extensive ones. It is therefore far too simplistic to simply count all money given to churches. However, there is something important about the willingness of folks in some religious traditions to give a lot of money to their churches.

Brooks accounted for income in his study. And found that conservatives still gave more - ie. working class conservatives gave more than working class liberals, rich conservatives more than rich liberals, etc. Also, they gave more of their time.

Remember folks. It doesn't make you "compassionate" to take somebody else's money and give it to someone. That's the whole point. It's not so much who does more, but that conservatives care about people too, and put their money and time into it. But are routinely trashed by liberals as uncaring. I think we should help the poor, and I do. I just think the way to help the poor person down the street is through the local church or charity, not through Washington. Mr. Klein and most readers here disagree with me. That's why we have elections. God Bless America.

Churches, like most non-profit, tax-deductible organizations, use money to support the institution itself. I don't pretend that my donation to my church is anything other than what it is: something that supports my community and its infrastructure. Now, that infrastructure and community makes it possible for us to hold other fundraisers and activities which support charitable missions in a more direct way, but the check I write to my own church is similar to the donations I give to my college or private high school: not charity, per se, but rather donations I give to causes that I support. Later on, when my church holds a fundraiser to help relief efforts of their charitable arm or organizes volunteers to help at a soup kitchen, that's a situation where your time and money directly goes to help those who have serious material needs.

All non-profits in America are treated the same for tax purposes. This is a good thing... I don't want the government running around deeming whether my donations are "worthy" of a tax deduction or not, once it meets some minimum threshold.... but let's not pretend that many donations are anything other than money going to support causes and institutions we believe are important. "Charity," on the other hand, is direct support to those in material need. Let's not conflate the issues... support for the religious organization of your choice is something that contributes to creating an environment in which support can be given for charity, rather than a form of charity itself.

Methinks the liberals doth protest too much.....

Or, at least, are too interested in facts and data, raining on the the conservatives' rhetorical parade... that's the complaint here I see from a few right wingers on this thread: that liberals have the audacity to show that the data undermines the right-wingers' beloved talking points.

Um, this isn't that hard. You ask, "What is charity?" and then go off in the weeds trying to parse this aspect or the other.

The commonly accepted answer is, "anything you can deduct on your taxes for charitable giving." This also happens to be the most reliable answer for doing apples-to-apples comparison, as it has been around for a long time, its meaning has not changed much in that time, and almost everybody has to calculate it every year.

You're over-thinking this.

I'm certain that Dems are the most charitable!!! Let me think......... If I could only think of a recent example of how charitable we are.....um uh .... OH YES! THE HEAD OF THE PARTY! OBAMA AND BIDEN ARE SOOOOO CHARITABLE, I'M SURE IF WE EXAMINE THEIR TAX RETURNS IT WILL SHOW HOW CHARITABLE OUR PARTY IS! IN YOUR FACE REPUBLICANS!

I'll tell you what's against the spirit of the enterprise: Not giving to charity.

I personally don't care to argue about it. Here's the test I propose: let us separate. Let us halve the United States, with conservatives and their policies going to one half and liberals and theirs going to the other. As an added incentive, we (the conservative half) will even take all the poor people. I'm completely serious. Then let us see which half is a) the one with the happiest population, and b) the one people are fighting to get into.

Let us all put our money where our mouths are and see where the chips fall. I already know where they will fall, which is why I support this idea. Lefties do, too, which is why they oppose it.

Please, let us separate.

It's always interesting to compare the charitable contributions of the Pres & VP candidates ...none of whom are poor. With NO exceptions, the Dem candidates give virtually nothing ... far less than the average working person (a caveat ... they do change their habits during an election year).

A case in point. Compare Obama/McCain and Biden/Palin ... on a percentage of income donated ... in the past election.

Let us all put our money where our mouths are and see where the chips fall. I already know where they will fall, which is why I support this idea. Lefties do, too, which is why they oppose it.

What a good idea. You could call it the Conservative States of America. I guess that would be the CSA for short. You're right, liberals do oppose efforts like that, I can't imagine why.

Please, let us separate.

Posted by: Jeff Davis | December 23, 2008 6:31 AM

Jeff, don't you remember the last time you tried that? it didn't work out so well, particularly for the conservative side.

I might note that whenever it gets implemented on the state level, it's popular for a while, and then people start agitating for liberal policies after the partytime ends. It's all well and good to found libertopia, but then after a generation or so, people kind of want someone to fix up their roads and schools and deal with the poverty created along the way.

The commonly accepted answer is, "anything you can deduct on your taxes for charitable giving."

Fair enough. But what do we find with this? We find that people who are religious give to charity, both because (a) their religions encourage this as part of their teachings, and (b) the fact that they are a member of an organized religion means that they give money to that religion, which is counted as a charity. (a) is giving that is genuinely charitable, in its own way. (b) is almost what could be called "tautological giving."

The Mormon argument, and mine, to a degree, is that (b) encourages (a). But that's not a liberal/conservative breakdown. That is, once again, a religious/non-religious breakdown. It just so happens that the right-wing made an effort to actively alienate secular people, and the secular people that remain conservative also have the least charitable giving (lacking both an instinct to give to charity and any institutional/cultural/religious connections that would encourage just giving).

No one seems to have mentioned this thus far so I thought I'd include it.

Liberals are less likely to report charitable donations on their tax returns because they actually agree with paying taxes in the first place, and believe in the government spending that tax dollars support. Obviously the opposite would be true with regard to conservatives.

### Liberals are less likely to report charitable donations on their tax returns because they actually agree with paying taxes in the first place, and believe in the government spending that tax dollars support. Obviously the opposite would be true with regard to conservatives. ###

Now that is the most creative explanation I have ever heard for not giving to charity ... the government does a better job!

OH WHAT LENGTHS PEOPLE WILL GO TO TO JUSTIFY THEIR OWN SELFISHNESS REGARDING CHARITY.

IT'S THIS SIMPLE.

LIBRALS BELIEVE IN TAKING, BY FORCE, THE FRUITS OF OTHERS, AND GIVING IT TO THE GOVERNMENT WHO THEN DECIDES WHO MAY BE DEEMED WORTHY TO RECEIVE....THAT'S NOT CHARITY!

TRUE CHARITY, MUST COME FROM THE HEART, WITHOUT FORCE OR CONSTRAINT, WHEREBY, ONE GIVES VOLUNTARILY OF THEIR OWN MEANS TO TO THOSE IN NEED.
IT'S THE PURE LOVE OF CHRIST. AND GOOD FOR THE SOUL.

IT SHOULD COME TO NO ONES SURPRISE, THAT LIBERALS, AL GORE, BIDEN, OBAMA, GAVE MERE PENNIES IN RELATION TO THEIR INCOMES ETC.. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. THEY ARE NOT GENEROUS WITH THIER OWN FRUITS.

THEIR MINDSET IS IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE WHEN IT COMES TO SHARING WITH THOSE IN NEED. IT'S EASIER FOR THEM TO TAKE FROM OTHERS AND
RE-DISTRIBUTE, THAN IT IS TO DIG INTO THEIR OWN POCKETS.

THIS IS A PRIMARY TEST OF ONES CHARACHTER, TO GIVE.
REMEMBER THE WIDOWS MITE?

THE RATIONALIZATION BY THE LEFT TO DEFEND THEIR SELFISHNESSS IS LAUGHABLE. GREAT LENGTHS ARE TAKEN HERE TO RE-DEFINE CHARITY, TO FIT THEIR LIBERAL, AKA MARXIST, TEMPLATE.

THE EFFICIENCY OF PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS TO GET THINGS DONE VS. GOVERNMENTS APPROACH IS NOT EVEN ARGUABLE.

YOU WANT ACTION? GET THE MORMONS, CATHOLICS, JEWS, BAPTISTS, FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS ETC. THEY'LL BE ON THE GROUND WORKING WHILE BUREAUCRATS ARE STILL SHARPENING THEIR PENCILS.

BECAUSE TO THOSE WITH CHARITY IT'S FROM THE HEART, TO THE BUREAUCRAT IT'S JUST A JOB.

LIBS... COME AND JOIN HUMANITY AND STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOUR WEAKNESS'.

YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN, NOW OWN UP TO IT AND TRY TO IMPROVE YOURSELVES.

AJARIZONA

the government does a better job!

In defense of this argument, "private charity" has a 6000-year track record of failure when it comes to stopping malnutrition, disease, and illiteracy. It only seems to end when the government puts into place infrastructure to address it.

And in any case, do you think those people working at those non-profits, social/legal services agencies, and soup kitchens are? If anything, I get a little angry at my fellow liberals for being all-too-willing to get exploited by working for charitable organizations rather than place themselves in a position where they can make better money.

Hey Tyro

The two most Government Laden cities in the World, New Orleans and Detroit, have been run for decades by bleeding heart liberals. How are they doing?

With lots of government money, programs and solutions, where are they today?

These cities are absolute disasters. Detroit's literacy rate is 23%. New Orlenas is a travesty.

Do a little research before you pop off and maybe you won't look so foolish in your evaluations.

pkwilliams

Hey Tyro

The two most Government Laden cities in the World, New Orleans and Detroit, have been run for decades by bleeding heart liberals. How are they doing?

With lots of government money, programs and solutions, where are they today?

These cities are absolute disasters. Detroit's literacy rate is 23%. New Orlenas is a travesty.

Do a little research before you pop off and maybe you won't look so foolish in your evaluations.

pkwilliams

Charity would be no more, if we did not make another poor. And miseries increase with 'mercy, pity, peace.'

First of all let me address some details:

Tithing is not a Mormon membership fee- your membership is not revoked if you fail to pay tithing. However, it is expected as a duty. Tithing pays for things like the electric bill, the construction and maintenance of new buildings. It is centralized and then redistributed, so most of the congregation in the United States are subsidizing Mormon congregations in other nations.

In addition to tithing, Mormons are expected to give Fast Offerings. The first Sunday of each month, Mormons fast for two meals and donate the money they would have expended on food to the Fast Offering Fund. This fund provides food, shelter, and clothing to those in need. Again, most US congregation subsidize the congregations in other countries. Additionally, Fast Offerings are used to provide emergency aid to victims of natural disasters.

Other donations are given to the Perpetual Education Fund. Which provide low or no interest loans to people who could not afford schooling otherwise. This provides them with tuition for trade schools allowing them to obtain better paying jobs. (This is in foreign countries).

Nor does any of this address the benefits of the church organization which is funded by tithing- which then provides the organization necessary to respond immediately to a crisis or disaster. An organization that also provides fellowship and comfort to people in times of trouble or grief.

Finally, there is also the main purpose of any church, which is the preaching of the word of God. That people may know who to repent of their sins and be heal of their wounds. All of which does more for the happiness of man than any mere material aid.

Religion can be the best of all charities. I can not speak to those that provide luxuries to the Pastors. However, most religious charities are among the most efficient and effective aids to their fellow men.

Secondly, if one looks at donations to political causes, "rich" people tend to be liberal. Upper middle class tended to be conservative, although lately they have split down the middle. Lower middle class tend to be conservative, the working poor are harder to track, because they don't have the money to waste on political donations.

In fact, income levels are not the best way to determine political leanings. Probably because Americans do not define themselves by their income. (For example, High school teachers identify more with Attorneys or Doctors, more than with a blue collar worker making similar money).

Also, some have pointed out that private charity has not eradicated poverty. My response is that neither have government programs- and the government programs have the effect of 1: creating incentives for bad behavior, and 2: create feelings of anger and class conflict between the rich and poor. Private charity on the other hand (particularly religious charity) creates good incentives, and encourages unity and fellowship between the rich and poor.

Perhaps you could argue that government run charities are necessary because private charity is insufficient- but there is no reasonable way to claim they are superior to private charity.

I think that goods and services other than money should also be counted as charity. How do you put a dollar value on a pint of blood, though? How do you deduct an hour of volunteering on your tax form? I think these things are at least as important as writing a check, but how, exactly, do you fit them into a study that all comes down to dollar figures?

In fact, income levels are not the best way to determine political leanings

This is precisely wrong. Almost invariably, they are. The rich are heavily Republican. They are not liberal, though a minority are. Rich Republicans tend to be less ideological, however. Upper middle class Republicans are more ideological about their Republican beliefs, in part because that is what they tink rich Republicans are like.

There are famous rich liberals (eg, Bill Gates, many members of the entertainment industry), but the traditional sources of economic wealth in our economy-- eg, finance, resource extraction, contruction, are dominated by Republicans. There is a fair amount of propaganda to the contrary, of course (Republicans frequently rail against "rich liberals," simply because you can win elections by attracting the rich alone), but that doesn't make it true. It may be that rich people you know are less religious and thus less connected to the religious-right, in your experience. However, when we look at voting patterns, the rich are most likely to be Republican, just as you would suspect.

High school teachers identify more with Attorneys or Doctors, more than with a blue collar worker making similar money).

You just said that the upper middle class was republican, didn't you? High school teachers, however, are more liberal. Also, high school teachers are more likely to be members of a union, like blue collar workers. So whom do you think high school teachers are going to identify with more, when they enter the voting booth? Your points, Cicero, are interesting, and maybe within your own Mormon community, they are true, but much of what you've said is incorrect and does not hold for the US in general.

These cities are absolute disasters. Detroit's literacy rate is 23%. New Orlenas is a travesty.

You're an asshole.

(I shouldn't have to say this, but some people are slow. Singling out New-Fucking-Orleans as an example of liberalism's failures? Seriously?)

One thing not to forget in all of this debate is that it's not as if there is an indivisible line between government and charitable giving. Quite a few organizations, particularly established ones like United Way, draw a considerable amount of funding in the form of grants from governments at all levels (but particularly local governments, such as cities).

For example, when I was interning for a city that shall remain nameless, we spent a lot of time trying to redesign some of the city's support for NGOs that provide education-related services (namely, After-School Programs) into a format that would distribute funds to programs based on how effectively they targeted the neediest part of the population. I'm almost positive we weren't the only city doing that - Denver was one of our main inspirations.

Or has everyone forgotten the hubub about "Faith-based charities"? You know, that spat that emerged early in the Bush Administration when they wanted to give more funds to religious organizations that do charitable work.

Hey Mark,
Yes dipshit. They've been run by liberals for at least half a century. What part of that can't you wrap your brain around? My guess....all of it.