I came across an article that appeared in the New York Times called “Bleeding Heart Tightwads” by Nicholas D. Kristof. Kristof, a liberal, goes on to say that liberals tend to be stingy when it comes to giving to charity. I found it to be very interesting and also contradictory to what I originally believed. I had always in the past believed liberals to be the group that is extremely generous and more prone to give to charity than Republicans. This is because liberals tend to push for policies that focus on using government spending to increase opportunities for the needy, something that is consistent of a charitable nature. After reading this article and doing some further research I decided to use Finder! and Maker! to display some of my findings on the subject.

In Kristof’s article he says he used the source, The Catalogue of Philanthropy to measure generosity by state. I went to this source and decided to map the inverse of what they call their “Generosity Index Ranking”. The site describes the index as rank of each state’s average adjusted gross income (AAGI) to the rank of each state’s average itemized charitable deductions (AICD). The arithmetical differences between these two rankings are then themselves ranked, resulting in the Generosity Index rank. So to basically sum it up the Generosity Index measures who spends a greater percentage of their income on charitable causes.

I mapped the Catalogue of Philanthropy’s figures for 1996, 2000, and 2004 because these years coincided with Presidential Elections were you would be able to see which states were red (conservative) or blue (liberal). The following combined datasets are mapped below. The orange states represent states that were red (conservative) and the blue states represent states that were blue (liberal). Also, the white circles represent the Inverse Generosity Index Ranking for the state. A larger white circle means a top ranking or that residents of the state contribute a larger percentage of their income to charity. Pay close attention to the average generosity scores at the bottom of each map. (Please click on images for a larger view or go to their Maker! weblink below the picture for an interactive view)


maker link
Average Red State Generosity Index Score = 33.84, Average Blue State Generosity Index Score = 11.89


maker link
Average Red State Generosity Index Score = 32.80, Average Blue State Generosity Index Score = 14.55


maker link
Average Red State Generosity Index Score = 35.37, Average Blue State Generosity Index Score = 19.45

During all three years states that voted republican had higher Inverse Generosity Index Scores as a whole over states that voted democratic according to the average index scores. Just by looking at the maps you can see that the orange colored states (conservative states) have the larger white circles (high rankings) and the blue colored states (liberal states) have the smaller white circles (low rankings). The next map shows states that during all three elections in 96, 00, and 04 voted for the same party versus an average of the state’s Inverse Generosity Index score for those three years. This is to give a good overall average of how very democratic states compare to very republican states when it comes to giving to charity.


maker link
Average Red State Generosity Index Score = 35.35, Average Blue State Generosity Index Score = 12.46

As you can see from the above map the data from past Presidential Elections the truly republican states have higher generosity rankings than the states that have solely voted for democrats. So maybe it is true that republicans are more generous.

Kristof in his article says that liberals often claim these findings are misleading because conservative states have higher religious populations. This causes their charity to go toward building big churches which is not accurate of measuring charity. I decided to take a close look at this accusation.

Below I mapped percentages of state populations that say they practice no religion (Dark Blue = high no religion population, dark orange = low no religion population) from a 2001 study by a group from Graduate Center of the City University of New York. I then compared these figures with the Inverse Generosity Index rankings from 2000. By doing this I figured it would give a look at how states with high religious participation gave to charity and how it compared to how states with low religious populations gave to charity.


maker link

Do liberals have a valid accusation? According to this map it appears so. For the most part it seems that dark orange states, the states that have high religious populations, have large black circles which indicate that they have a higher Inverse Generosity Index. Also most of the dark blue states have small black circles. But there are still a few outliers and when comparing correlations between no religion vs. charity to politics vs. charity we see that there is a stronger correlation between politics vs. charity (see below).

Values closer to -1 or a slope that is almost a straight line, show strong correlations. Therefore we see that low activity in church vs. generosity does not show as strong of a correlation as politics vs. charity. So can liberals really say that their lack of giving is because they are not giving to churches as much as conservatives? Are the facts about religious participation strong enough to discredit the facts on political participation?

So are liberals stingier than conservatives?. The data has suggested that they are. One thing that I am unhappy with is that this data is somewhat dated with the most recent year being in 2004 for philanthropy stats from the Catalogue of Philanthropy. I am anxious to see if the trend has continued into the present and am eager to compare 2008 charity figures with red and blue states from the 2008 Presidential Election.

Overall, I like how Kristof does not see the data as a negative, but a way to encourage more of his fellow liberals to contribute more. He states in his article, “Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.”

 

82 Responses to Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats?

  1. Poe says:

    “This is because liberals tend to push for policies that focus on using government spending to increase opportunities for the needy, something that is consistent of a charitable nature.”

    This statement is flat wrong. Charity is putting your hand in your own pocket to giving to someone in you decide is in need.

    Liberals advocate the government putting its hand in the pocket of someone else to give to someone it decides is in need (very often this decision is based not on genuine need but political gain).

    • Jeff Johnson says:

      “Liberals advocate the government putting its hand in the pocket of someone else to give to someone it decides is in need”

      A false accusation like this may seem like good politics, but it can’t possibly be true.

      How could a liberal advocate a policy that uses tax revenues that exempts themselves from taxation? No, liberals advocate policies that use the organized power of government for good, and they expect themselves to be taxed along with everyone else.

      All the Republican charity, of which a good bit goes to churches, has not solved the problems of too many Americans without healthcare, and too many people living in poverty, and too many lacking adequate education opportunities and vocational training opportunities needed to build broad prosperity. A hodgepodge of independent charities cannot possibly be organized and efficient enough to really solve national problems.

      • ettu says:

        Please do not be a dumb A$$

      • Cutlass says:

        “…liberals advocate policies that use the organized power of government for good, and they expect themselves to be taxed along with everyone else.”

        Really? If they expect to be taxed themselves why the constant calls to tax “the rich” while at least 47% of Americans, and rising, pay essentially no income tax?

        Certainly some wealthy people support Obama because they think bigger government is compassionate and they can afford higher taxes; but do you really think, say, young people or public union members who vote for Obama actually expect to pay those higher taxes?

        • Julian Delphiki says:

          They do expect to pay taxes just like everyone else. They are making calls to tax the rich more because the rich have so much to spare and yet pay such a small percentage. The rich already have so many advantages over the poor. Surely just having medical care, food, and a good education aren’t too much to ask for? What people have to realize is that the more we give to the people on the bottom, the better this country will become. If we didn’t have so many uneducated, starving, or injured people, this country would still be the best there is.

          • Mike0627 says:

            OMG – you truly are an idiot. “Surely just having medical care, food, and a good education aren’t too much to ask for?” Really… then let the people who are willing to do something for it get off their entitled asses and get it. You people make me sick. Keep you freaking hands out of my pockets.

          • Bill says:

            Julian, you are missing the point. The point of the article is not to look at the super rich or the super poor. This is saying that the republican making $50,000/year gives more out of their pocket than the democrat that makes $50,000/year. Why is that? Both are not rich and could use the extra money. The republican is more willing to actually help the situation by giving directly to the situation. The democrat just bitches and moans that someone else should be helping, but doesn’t lift a finger or pull out a dollar to actually help.

        • JP says:

          A good portion of the so called 47% of Americans (if that’s even a correct figure) that don’t pay taxes, don’t do so because the rich refuse to pay them a living wage. Any percent of nothing equals nothing.
          http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

      • James Mays says:

        Oh,Contrarar,Jeff When a republican gives,he dosen’t go back to the ones he gives to,and ask for Kick Backs for giving,or a Scratch on the Back!Besides You never Vote for a Honest Polititions.Just the Least Crocked of the Two.Which is Usally the Republican!Liberals are “Oxymoron’s”!

    • Matt COllet says:

      to Julian Delphiki- When you say that the rich pay such a small percent, did you know that the USA is the most progressively taxed country in the world? This means that the top 10% pay a larger percent of total taxes in the US then in any other country in the world. Just thought you should know

  2. louis says:

    this interpretation has been a virtual truism for the last couple of decades (i remember reading about this in the 90s). one interpretation may be that often those on the left of the spectrum also find employment with organizations that do ‘good’, and thus contribute their time and sacrificed pay: two things such studies don’t attempt to quantify.

    i don’t have any data to support my theory, but i think it’s one approach to the issue that i haven’t read about yet. in sum, if someone works for a non-profit for 35K, s/he doesn’t have a whole lot to give away monetarily speaking. but the time, thought, and energy spent at work is her/his contribution.

    of course, there are more complicating factors as to why one chooses to work for socially progressive organizations–not all of them altruistic.

    another spin on these data is that ‘liberals’ want to spend collective money, not their own–they want to socialize charity, whereas ‘conservatives’ want to individualize charity. that, too, sounds like a legitimate interpretation of fundamentally different world-views. ‘liberals’ want us all to chip in (through taxes), and ‘conservatives’ want to pick their own charities (and pay fewer taxes). of course, in practice, republican and democrat politicians both want citizens to pay taxes–it’s just how they spend it that differentiates them sometimes (i say sometimes, b/c both have their own lobbyists to appease, and the lion’s share of money spent is rarely in accordance w/ their average constituent’s wishes).

    ‘liberals’ seem to grasp that economies of scale are more efficient (larger pot of $ can do more for R&D, schools, healthcare, etc.), whereas ‘conservatives’ are more concerned about individual liberty. it’s a ‘we are in this together, so let’s all pitch in and help’ vs. ‘your liberty ends where mine begins, so i won’t tell you how to spend your money, and you leave my money alone.’ i don’t think one side is more generous than the other: i think their worldviews are distinct and incompatible. the only way to move past the impasse is for one side to convince greater numbers of the cogency of one’s argument (instead of the usual demagoguery that passes for political discourse in the US)

    • ettu says:

      Recently reported, the administrators of a Chicago (Lib/Dem all the way) non-profit charitable organization tripled their salaries. That is another way of taking from someone else’s pocket to fill their own and then tell everyone about all the good they do.

  3. KoS says:

    My only comment is…..I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. Not all Republicans or Democrats can be pushed into the conservative vs. liberal camps. There are conservative democrats out there, just as there are liberal republicans.

    There should be two comparisons. Republican vs. Democrat and liberal vs. conservative. Not necessarily mixing the two.

    Great post.

  4. mike says:

    I enjoyed reading your analysis.
    I think that there might be an additional factor. People in blue states might have less disposable income to give to charity because they pay more in taxes. It’s not that they like to pay taxes, but most blue states get less back in federal money than they pay, while most red states receive more than they pay. So, blue states (or donor states) have higher state income taxes to make up the difference, while most red states (or welfare states, if you will) have lower state income taxes.

  5. Sean says:

    This analysis suffers from the ecological fallacy. You cannot connect a states voting pattern to state charity donation data and say anything meaningful about liberal or conservative philanthropy. You may be able to say that people in Mississippi are, on average, more generous than people in Wisconsin. But you can’t say why with any certainty.

    Consider a scenario in which a state’s minority ‘liberals’ make a majority of the donations and donate heavily. The state would have both a high ‘Generosity Index’ and be red but you would know nothing about liberal vs. conservative giving patterns.

    The overall theme may hold true — that conservatives donate more than liberals — but this analysis does nothing to bolster that conjecture. It may be useful as exploratory statistics but it fails as real, rigorous analysis.

    • Connie Briggs says:

      I agree with Mike. Could you subtract out the people who make under $35,000 per year (or a number of your choosing)? If people make a minimum amt. to pay for heat, utilities, health insurance, food, clothing then they might donate more (something other than 0) –the percentage they donate would probably go up with income. So low income people would drag down the blue states’ percentages. Better yet, just look at people who make $250,000 or more per year.

      • Nomad Rev K says:

        The point you appear to have missed in this study is that it was based on a political affiliation according to the majority of voters registered. Also, the numbers were done on a percentage basis so it takes into consideration those with low-income vs high-income. Many of these comments sited here are being done out of rebuttal or derogatory statements. The study is not in need of defense if reading to the final portion. The original author that inspired this was simply using a broad based founding to inspire financial action on the part of personal giving. Taxes are NOT the answer because they are the problem!!! Do some studies on the taxation history of the U.S. and find the truth regarding that one.

  6. Aurel says:

    yep, ecological fallacy is a big issue with that analysis; theoretically (very unlikely though) it would be possible that no single “conservative” donated anything at all and still get the same outcome, but there is a far bigger problem with that analysis:

    this philantrophy organisation builds an ordinal scale of 2 Values and then does builds the arithmetic difference of it to determine the most generous states. This is total bogus. Imagine theoretically the people of the richest state meaning Rank 1 in AAGI donates 100$ of their money their money so they are also Rank 1 in AICD. Now what score do they get? 1-1 = 0

    Now take a state which has Rank 40 in AAGI and the people there donates 10% of their income which makes them lets say place 15 in AICD. Now they get a score of 40-15 = 25. This means they would have a much more favourable Rank in the Generiosity Index.
    That Index totally favours the poorer states and as most rich states vote democrats the findings are not surprising.

    Seriously I haven’t seen such a hilarious statistical prank for a long time. I got suspicious as soon as I couldn’t understand immediately how the Ranking works, first I thought I was just tired and my english skills are too bad, but then I asked myself why they made such a complicated construct instead of just either taking the ratio of donated money / income – either arithmetical middle or maybe even better the median values if that non-aggregated data is actually available.

    If I recall correctly most states in the last election voted something like 45-55% for either candidate and that difference would also be too small to really explain big chances very likely

  7. Aurel says:

    the 100$ in the 2nd paragraph are supposed to be 100%, sorry for that.

    P.S: Am I blind or is there no way to edit a comment?

  8. Aurel says:

    sorry for posting 3 comments in a Row , I intented to go to bed after each single one of them, but it let me no rest.

    I quickly calculated the percentage of income spend for charitable deductions for each state for 2000 and 2004 and matched against these 2 specific elections it surprisingly doesn’t change the result too much. People in states the Dems one spend about 6,5% in 2000 and 2004 and Republicans spend 9,5%. That doesn’t how incredibly stupid the GI is and for 1996 and
    But for the 1996 and 2008 the results would probably look very different.

    How is the AICD measured by the way?

    There is a lot more to this topic but its already 2:22 AM here now so I’ll finally go to sleep.

  9. Burkey says:

    Aurel,

    Great Posts. Sorry if they kept you up late last night :)

    The link below might help you with some of your questions. It is technical notes from the Catalogue of Philanthropy on their study. Hope it helps.

    http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/natl/generosity_index/2004_us_notes.php

    Thanks for all the great comments everyone!

  10. [...] was reading Kevin Burke’s post today on the relationship between political affiliation and charitable giving, and thought it was a [...]

  11. mattmc says:

    The problem with this is that contributions to churches, which are not really charities are counted here. People who are swindled into paying huge salaries to church leaders are distorting these statistics. Basically this shows that people in red states have less ability to think on their own, and feel obligated to pay people to lots of money to feel good about their own existence.

    • berthling says:

      And the church that I attend gives back to it’s community all the time. Food bank operated by the church for one thing, and many others. To say that the money is going into huge salaries is a little ignorant. There are few ministers that are getting rich doing what they do. As for those of us having less ability to think on our own, I have to passionately disagree. We prefer to see that money go to something that we agree with, that’s morally upright, and is actually doing some real good in the area. And some of the church members give outside of the church as well. On these points you’re just flat-out wrong!

    • Brien says:

      Dude, come to my church. I assure you my pastors are not living exorbitantly, nor a the vast majority of pastors out there. Even someone like Rick Warren doesn’t live off salary from his church, rather his book sales. Think for yourself, and don’t be swindled by lies!

    • Erin says:

      Churches aren’t really charities? I know a comment in the article was made to the effect of “giving to church to build huge buildings” but to be honest, MOST of the donations to churches goes to charitable giving OUTSIDE of the church, to both the surrounding and needy world communities. My particular church did recently have to fund a new building but it was a totally separate collection above and beyond what people gave for charitable works.

  12. dan says:

    Hello Kevin,

    I’m curious about the correlation graphs and coefficients you show above. Were they generated via GeoCommons, or with an external tool?

    Thanks,
    Dan

  13. Sean Gorman says:

    Hi Dan,

    They were done with GeoCommons, but it is not something we have on the public site. It is easy to come to misleading conclusion with the tool for those without a background in statistics, so still trying to figure how to deal with that. The tool and several related data analysis tools are available for our enterprise customers where it is a more controlled environment.

    best,
    sean

  14. Dave Coward says:

    mattmc, you’re a bigot. Next time try a reasoned argument bolstered by facts and maybe you won’t expose your ignorance.

  15. Ron says:

    What it seems a few people above are not recognizing is that the article states that it is based on a percentage of income, not the actual dollar amount. If I earn $50,000 and give $5,000 to charity that is 10%. If I make $500,000 and give $20,000 that is more money but only 4%. I think most people would agree that the person giving 10% was more generous. As for mattmc; what a load of rubbish. Your personal hate for religion does not make those with faith wrong. With ideas like yours, it is obvious you have no clue who are the main supporters of food pantries are and the groups that provide the bulk of workers at agencies that provide meals to the needy.

  16. Ron says:

    What it seems a few people above are not recognizing is that the article states that it is based on a percentage of income, not the actual dollar amount. If I earn $50,000 and give $5,000 to charity that is 10%. If I make $500,000 and give $20,000 that is more money but only 4%. I think most people would agree that the person giving 10% was more generous. As for mattmc; what a load of rubbish. Your personal hate for religion does not make those with faith wrong. With ideas like yours, it is obvious you have no clue who are the main supporters of food pantries and the groups that provide the bulk of workers at agencies that provide meals to the needy.

  17. [...] Southern Hemisphere having an affair on the tax payers account? "Just wondering" Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | Off the Map – Official Blog of… Reading this article on charitable giving, it is clear that the right give much more to charity [...]

  18. [...] have always been more generous and helpful to their fellow man than you liberal tightwads. And the data backs this up. It has never been about us not caring about people getting health care. Ever. That’s just you [...]

  19. [...] Burke in “Who is More Generous?  Republicans or Democrats?” actually gives more historical data to support Kristof’s [...]

  20. [...] a liberal, goes on to say that liberals tend to be stingy when it comes to giving to charity. Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | Off the Map – Official Blog of… Quote: — Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of [...]

  21. [...] women are doing. We may not engage in “social justice,” but research shows that conservatives donate much more of their income to nonprofits and social causes and volunteer more (also see Aurthur C. Brooks’ Who Really [...]

  22. [...] are fcukking phonies and highly stingy. All that moralistic BS is a bunch of hooey………… Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | Off the Map – Official Blog of… Charities ask liberals to give and liberals give……………THE FCUKKING FINGER!!! [...]

  23. [...] to this article from your link, at least one study based their conclusions on the political results of the last few elections. So [...]

  24. [...] like the answer change the assumptions and the definitions. I spent five minutes with Google: Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? "So are liberals stingier than conservatives?. The data has suggested that they are. One [...]

  25. [...] — government programs both in his day), rather than the Christian one. Meanwhile, there is evidence that Republicans tend to be more charitable than Democrats. In point of fact, I would suggest that [...]

  26. [...] Data also shows that republicans give 2-3x as much of their own income to charity as democrats do (Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats?). Maybe if liberals did more giving of their own money, and less giving of other people's money, we [...]

  27. [...] personal income to charity as Democrats, despite Democrats earning, on average, 6% more money (Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats?). Democrats are only generous with OTHER people's money, not their own. Also, in addition to the [...]

  28. Norm Peters says:

    Rich folks have less money to give away (marginal value of money is MORE for them.

  29. Hello there, just become alert to your blog thru Google, and located that it’s truly informative. I’m going to watch out for brussels. I’ll be grateful should you proceed this in future. A lot of people will probably be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!

  30. JulieB says:

    I did a similar comparison a few years ago only I did it based on *wealth and income*, not on political preference. The graph is a u-shape: the highest percent of giving was from the wealthiest states (e.g., Connecticut), and the lowest percent of giving was from the middle class states. Although the poor states’ (e.g., Mississippi) percent of giving wasn’t quite as high as the wealthiest, I think that is misleading. When someone’s income is $20,000 a year, a donation to a charitable organization takes away from money needed to buy essentials such as food, clothing, and housing. When someone’s income is $2,000,000 a year, a donation of the same percent is taking away money from either an investment or a luxury – but it’s not taking food off the table.

    I personally saw this dynamic as a fund-raiser for a large charitable organization that, if approved, can take deductions straight out of paychecks. The poorest people gave the most generously because they knew what it was like to like on the edge of poverty – they had been there or knew people who were. This was also evident in the presentations. The poorest people paid attention, much of what they saw hit close to home. The managers and executives, not so much. They chatted amongst themselves or stared into space.

    Also, lets not discount the fact that the very rich are in competition with themselves to make charitable contributions. It’s rare that they make anonymous donations: they want their name on the hospital wing or at the top of the list with the other platinum givers in the charity ball program.

  31. JulieB says:

    Addendum to the post above: Most analyses regarding charitable giving are based on the amounts declared in itemized tax returns. However, the poorest people don’t itemize, and therefore their level of giving is difficult to estimate accurately and is, from my experience working with poor people who donate, understated to a significant degree.

  32. Chad says:

    There is enough gray area in the statistics that anyone can make the case they wish based upon whatever biases and or logical predispositions they bring to the debate. That being said, the statistics are presented in a percentage of income, so the higher income portion of society contributing more in over all dollars shouldn’t be a part of the argument. I also know, from the personal experience of living in a very liberal area, that a large portion of the liberal demo-graph is made up of well to do baby boomers, and well to do, highly educated, college grads. So this idea of skewing the results based upon red vs blue states into rich vs poor seems less than well thought out.

    My final comment is on this idea that religious people donating to charity are really simply buying fancy worshiping centers, seems to be a transparently hallow attempt to discredit unwanted findings. I have no doubt the accusation can find instances of validity, but overall churches become the example of a society that can find a way to manage it’s own charitable needs. I’m not religious, but having grown up in a christian household, I know that they provided for their own when ever they needed it, from food to cash or just some personal labor. Then when the next person needed help, the last individual who needed a hand was there to do what they could. Government and bureaucracy is definitely not the answer.

  33. cnukus says:

    It’s not writtern for non-American…

    Can’t understand the terms.

  34. Kurious says:

    Wondering if it would be even more telling to run an analysis like this, but excluding political contributions. Is it possible that an individual might make a donation to a political party strictly as a “cold-hearted investment” in the hopes that it would eventually result in lowering his future taxes? His ultimate goal being to put more money in his own pocket. Can we really say that this sort of financially motivated political contribution would serve as an accurate measure of one’s “generosity” or “charitable intent” (ultimate goal of keeping LESS money in one’s own pocket)?

  35. [...] statistically out give those that consider themselves Democrats. As the author of the post “Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans of Democrats” points out, Republicans statistically give more than Democrats. Using the “Generosity [...]

  36. [...] their liberal brethren.  As Arthur Brooks found a few years ago–in a study that others have corroborated–those who identify as conservative give more to charity than those who identify as [...]

  37. [...] statistically out give those that consider themselves Democrats. As the author of the post “Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans of Democrats” points out, Republicans statistically give more than Democrats. Using the “Generosity [...]

  38. [...] Republicans and Democrats, despite Democrats being richer. Richest People in America are Democrats Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | GeoIQ Blog Welfare is nothing more than modern day slavery and segregation. The Democrats couldn't get away [...]

  39. Thomas Perry says:

    Before I have any conclusion on this story, I would like to see/know what the data set was and what the margin for error was. I would also like to know how this data was collected.

    • Victor says:

      hey there and thank you on your information I’ve detieifnly picked up something new from proper here. I did however experience several technical issues the usage of this site, as I skilled to reload the site lots of times previous to I may get it to load properly. I had been pondering if your web host is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading cases instances will very frequently impact your placement in google and could harm your quality score if ads and with Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for much extra of your respective fascinating content. Make sure you replace this once more very soon..

  40. Thomas Perry says:

    Before I believe such an article I have to know what the qualifications for the data set was, what the margin of error was and most important, how the data was collected. It is not that I am trying to find fault, but I took a statistical class last semester and learned a lot about how such reports are gathered. Now, I am not claiming to be an expert and I do not pretend to be one, but I would have a better understanding of the data if I had those questions answered.

    I mean, if the data was collect via people voluntarily contacting the study, right there I am suspect, but if the people were contacted, then that is a different story. Then, there was the religious question that was brought up in the comments. That is valid point, if conservatives are giving more to their church then liberals are, then that can skew the numbers. Problem is this, how were the questions asked, how many questions were asked. You get to many variables going into a study and you can pretty much make it show whatever you want.

    So, I am NOT passing judgement on this, I just want to see the data set and what the qualifications were.

  41. Ben says:

    One also needs to consider that some people can donate a painting worth a million dollars and have that counted against income that doesn’t include the value of that painting above its cost – an intentional loophole in the law supposedly there to help museums get donations. Just as most people cannot count (or deduct on their taxes) the ‘time’ they donate to charity, the comparisons on percentage of income donated shouldn’t allow the value of appreciated assets. Or make the comparisons on the basis of all donations, whether monetary or otherwise.

  42. [...] as far as charitable contributions? – Yahoo! Answers Charitable Giving: Liberals vs. Conservatives Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | GeoIQ Blog Charity's Political Divide, Republicans give a bigger share to charity (Democrats Don't) Biden gave [...]

  43. John S says:

    this doesn’t/can’t get to motives – is giving for a tax write off or out of genuine concern? Perhaps a study of donating time and effort would help fill out the picture. Things like who serves at soup kitchens and takes in more foster kids? I’m pretty sure the results would fall along the same lines as the study shows for giving. Painting with a big brush – liberals feel, conservatives do.

    So giving to church ‘doesn’t count’? Are you kidding me?! Churches only buy stained glass windows right? No soup kitchens or counseling services or helping single moms or supporting widows and orphans or trips to inner cities and 3rd world countries et al. There are a plethora of liberal ‘charities’ that I think do meaningless work, don’t offer any genuine help to anyone. I question the effectiveness of what they do but not their heart. Obviously liberals don’t afford the same ‘charity’.

  44. Dean Morris says:

    I would also be curious to know who volunteers more time to charity in volunteerism, ans who actually cares about the charities they volunteer with. My point being that I always see Conservatives talking about all of the things they give to charities that help the poor and needy, but then these Conservatives are demanding recognition for what they have done and also will sit around judging, criticizing and dehumanizing the people they claim to be helping. To me, that is a waste of time. By doing this they destroy their own credibility as givers, IMO.

  45. ettu says:

    Seems like quite a few Libs/Dems commenting on this article, trying to spin their way out of the cold hard facts…………..again……….as always.

  46. Severely says:

    Now rewrite this in English with charts the average person can understand at a glance.

  47. Rusty Taylor says:

    Liberals are GREAT at spending OTHER peoples money but when it comes to their own it is HANDS OFF!!!

  48. Terry Sawyer says:

    Yeѕ! Finally something about ABC.

  49. KWitworth says:

    Another point worth considering is that a religious contribution is still a contribution. In other words it is a personal sacrifice, and it takes away from your “bottom line”. Don’t discount it because of the tax credit bcause that only gives you pennies back on your dollar. Also, this infers that Republicans have a greater tendancy to love/fear/serve God and others (i.e. religious), while Democrats, well…, serve themselves.

  50. Klaus Krauthammer says:

    One year when AGORE was Vice President he only contributed just over $300.00 to charity but the controlled biased news didn’t report his grand donation. Liberals are very generous with your money but never their own. They are parasites.

  51. Richard says:

    Now go research what church’s do with those donations? Yes some churches fund absurd preacher’s salaries and build giant buildings, but the vast majority of churches, especially the small congregational churches, support the homeless and poor daily. If you are homeless, you know to go to churches for food and shelter. Members of these churches bring in food stuffes on a weekly basis to stock basics for homeless — these donations being nonmonetary are difficult to quantify come tax time and go unreported.

    Then add in the number of hours donated by church members at charity functions to help those in need … And you’ll only begin to understand the impact of churches on life in the USA.

    Liberal and conservative aside, this country, despite the government, is a giving country and the churches are the backbone that makes this happen. Religious people take a lot of heat for the hypocrisy that is easy to point out when they fail — but it is a fact that the vast majority of church members are good people doing good things for others.

  52. [...] [ii] I also find it extremely interesting that it is usually those on the left that are so adamant about government programs for the poor, but it is those on the right who overwhelmingly give more to charities.  (http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/) [...]

  53. Akita says:

    I think that is among the most important info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. However want to observation on few basic issues, The site style is great, the articles is in point of fact great : D. Excellent task, cheers

  54. [...] more to charity and it is not because they are rich:  It is true at all income levels, see e.g. http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/, http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html/.  Again, [...]

  55. What a information of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious knowledge about unexpected emotions.

  56. [...] internet  you might come to this 2009 article loaded with data and interactive gift giving map. http://blog.geoiq.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/ The article goes on with support numbers and some reasons of why, higher religious population for [...]

  57. This post is truly a pleasant one it assists new internet visitors, who are
    wishing for blogging.

  58. Wow! This blog looks just like my old one! It’s on a totally different subject but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Outstanding choice of colors!

  59. It’s an remarkable article for all the web viewers; they will take benefit from it I am sure.