Liberals Are Cheap! [Jack Fowler]And by going to “here,” we can learn how John himself explains his research methodology:
John Stossel’s 20/20 special last night – “Cheap in America” – was a great program, as usual for him, and had a wonderful segment comparing charitable giving between Red and Blue states, pitting Salvation Army bell-ringers in San Francisco (in front of a Macy’s) versus Sioux Falls, SD (in front of a Wal-Mart). At the end of the day, the folks in Sioux Falls’ had given twice as much money as Nancy Pelosi’s constituents. More of Stossel on conservative generosity/liberal cheapness here.
To test what types of people give more, “20/20″ went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy’s in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?Well, Jack already revealed the surprise, but it’s clear that Stossel’s little experiment conclusively proved that liberals are cheap – after all, there’s no other explanation for why a bell-ringer in Sioux City would collect more than one in San Francisco . . . except that maybe San Franciscans objected to the religious discrimination the Salvation Army practices against its employees, and so chose to give their charitable contributions to other groups. Or maybe the San Franciscans give their contributions to the SA via payroll deduction or generous checks mailed to the regional office, and didn’t give anything more to the bell-ringer because they don’t carry around cash. Or any of a number of other reasons.
But considering these variables wouldn’t help Stossel to do what he set out to do: prove that it’s a big, stupid myth that liberals “care more about the less fortunate” than conservatives do. After all, that’s what makes great TV.
Anyway, tune in next time when Stossel will demolish the myth that liberals are smarter than conservatives by stopping passers-by outside the Macy’s in San Francisco and the Hooter in Midland, Texas, and quizzing them on NASCAR trivia.
Posted by s.z. on Friday, December 1st, 2006 at 4:42 am
24 Responses to “Sociological Research the Stossel Way!”
Yeah? Fucking tell that to Annti, you fuckwit Stossel. You don’t get to define charity, and you sure as hell don’t get to define helping out people with needs, ’cause you don’t believe in either, you libertarian toad, and you sure the fuck don’t believe in a social safety net.
Liberals are some of the most generous people I know, and they are *thoughtfully* generous. They think about who needs help and how to provide it, and they actually make an effort to do it, rather than tossing their register change in a bucket as an afterthought because they just spent five hundred bucks in the mall and don’t like having forty eight cents rattling in their pockets. Can’t you feel the compassion?
Personally, I can’t tell if he’s getting stupider or nastier or both, but God knows he’s making even less sense than he ever used to.
Liberals are some of the most generous people I know, and they are *thoughtfully* generous. They think about who needs help and how to provide it, and they actually make an effort to do it, rather than tossing their register change in a bucket as an afterthought because they just spent five hundred bucks in the mall and don’t like having forty eight cents rattling in their pockets. Can’t you feel the compassion?
Personally, I can’t tell if he’s getting stupider or nastier or both, but God knows he’s making even less sense than he ever used to.
That would be the “Hooters.” They almost alway appear in pairs.
Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
This is utter horseshit on so many levels. God only knows where Stossel and his enablers like Arthur Brooks get their stats, but the only reliable data I’m aware of that tracks charitable giving as percentage of income is tax returns. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, (see the pdf file for 2004 for example) the average percent of income for charitable contributions for the U.S. is 2.4%. There were only 15 states with a higher than average percent (16 if you count D.C. at #2) and at least a third of these are certifiably Blue. (Note, this data eliminates non-itemized returns altogether.)
Moreover, as reflected in the #1 state, Utah, charitable giving includes church contributions, and this will skew any percentage, especially in areas where people tithe upwards of 15% or more of their annual income. Plus, in actual total dollar amounts of giving, the Blue states, and urban areas in particular, have it all over the Red.
Not to mention that Stossel has previously agreed with Cypress Semiconductor CEO and über-liberloon, T.J. Rogers’ expressed opinion that charitable giving is immoral when it is much more altruistic to use the money for captal investment that will allegedly create jobs.
Stossel is a fucking liar, in every respect. Nothing more.
(Sorry to be so lengthy, but I really loathe the creep.)
This is utter horseshit on so many levels. God only knows where Stossel and his enablers like Arthur Brooks get their stats, but the only reliable data I’m aware of that tracks charitable giving as percentage of income is tax returns. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, (see the pdf file for 2004 for example) the average percent of income for charitable contributions for the U.S. is 2.4%. There were only 15 states with a higher than average percent (16 if you count D.C. at #2) and at least a third of these are certifiably Blue. (Note, this data eliminates non-itemized returns altogether.)
Moreover, as reflected in the #1 state, Utah, charitable giving includes church contributions, and this will skew any percentage, especially in areas where people tithe upwards of 15% or more of their annual income. Plus, in actual total dollar amounts of giving, the Blue states, and urban areas in particular, have it all over the Red.
Not to mention that Stossel has previously agreed with Cypress Semiconductor CEO and über-liberloon, T.J. Rogers’ expressed opinion that charitable giving is immoral when it is much more altruistic to use the money for captal investment that will allegedly create jobs.
Stossel is a fucking liar, in every respect. Nothing more.
(Sorry to be so lengthy, but I really loathe the creep.)
Not to mention that there might be just a few more Salvation Army bell-ringers in San Francisco than there are in Sioux Falls, and there might be a few other opportunities to give a couple of bucks to either organised charities or even directly to people in SF. Unless Stossel managed to shut down all charitable activities in both cities during his little experiment.
Ugh. What an idiot.
I don’t carry a lot of cash when I’m in a big city- and as fuyura says, there are lots more opportunities to give. I took names from the Salvation Army Silver Angel Tree, 2 kids and one “Grandpa”. Now I live in Nevada, but used to live in SF. A lovely, fun city.
I actually make it a point to avoid the bell ringers, if only because it’s annoying and contrived. So Stossel’s got me there. Someday, maybe he’ll ask about my other charitable giving. I doubt it tho; it wouldn’t fit into his perfect little red/blue picture. Can’t have that now, can we?
Forbes says Stoessel’s a liar. (surprise, surprise) Their list of the top ten states for charitable giving:
1) Utah (red)
2) Maryland (blue)
3) New York (blue)
4) Connecticut (blue)
5) California (blue)
6) Hawaii (blue)
7) New Jersey (blue)
Georgia (red)
9) S. Carolina (red)
10) N. Carolina (red)
Final tally: 6 blue, 4 red.
1) Utah (red)
2) Maryland (blue)
3) New York (blue)
4) Connecticut (blue)
5) California (blue)
6) Hawaii (blue)
7) New Jersey (blue)
Georgia (red)9) S. Carolina (red)
10) N. Carolina (red)
Final tally: 6 blue, 4 red.
I used to give to the SA, but not after I found out that they spend a lot of money loobbying against anti-discrimination legislation. Sorry, but that’s not where I want my money to go. I iwsh some other organization stood out on the street so I could throw them a few bucks, however.
:::blushing astonishingly daintily:::
Awww, D…. You do my heart such good… but then, you and those magical cranes are works of wonder from another universe, as it is. And I feel highly privileged to know you all.
Now, granted, I am highly offended by the way that the Salvation Army has been known to shove bibles down the throats of the homeless as they’re ponying-up the sandwiches, not to mention that they DO discriminate against non-christians in employment, just like those nazi cocksuckers at Chik-Fil-A (I love their ad campaigns, but I hate their guts).
BUT: Even as the most stringent and fervent atheist that I know, I cannot forget that, while the American Red Cross was pulling their puddins in hotel rooms in LaPlace, Louisiana, for SIX FUCKING DAYS, while awaiting *permission* from the STIL-VACATIONING King George to go into Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Bernard Parishes — The Salvation Army food wagons and all their volunteers were in there, THE DAY THAT THE STORM HIT. And they STAYED. The WHOLE FUCKING TIME. They never “bugged out” with all of the other late evacuees from Charity Hospital and every other source of help/comfort/food (except for Andrea from getyouracton.com & her dear hubby & their animal-rescue & soup-kitchen in the 9th Ward).
So, while I will never patronize the Salvation Army or their bell-ringers if I can help it (although they used to have a KILLER thrift store on Jefferson Highway, but it’s long gone, unfortunately), and I do not support their xian bigotry that they think is “exempt” from EEOC laws or enforcement — I will never forget that they were THERE in New Orleans when nobody else was.
Please return to your discussion, I just hadda throw my two cents’ worth in.
And yes, the Leolathon is still in progress, kids. Please keep passing the good word for us, will y’all? She’s going to Shreveport to see that specialist on Tuesday, so cross yer fingers, light yer candles, make wishes to the fairie wood sprites, whatever works. Hopefully after that, we’ll have a more accurate idea of what can really realistically be done, which program/hospital will best suited for her needs, and when we can get the surgery to actually HAPPEN.
And tell Stossel and his pseudo-libertarian trolls to stick THAT in their porno moustaches and smoke it.
Awww, D…. You do my heart such good… but then, you and those magical cranes are works of wonder from another universe, as it is. And I feel highly privileged to know you all.
Now, granted, I am highly offended by the way that the Salvation Army has been known to shove bibles down the throats of the homeless as they’re ponying-up the sandwiches, not to mention that they DO discriminate against non-christians in employment, just like those nazi cocksuckers at Chik-Fil-A (I love their ad campaigns, but I hate their guts).
BUT: Even as the most stringent and fervent atheist that I know, I cannot forget that, while the American Red Cross was pulling their puddins in hotel rooms in LaPlace, Louisiana, for SIX FUCKING DAYS, while awaiting *permission* from the STIL-VACATIONING King George to go into Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Bernard Parishes — The Salvation Army food wagons and all their volunteers were in there, THE DAY THAT THE STORM HIT. And they STAYED. The WHOLE FUCKING TIME. They never “bugged out” with all of the other late evacuees from Charity Hospital and every other source of help/comfort/food (except for Andrea from getyouracton.com & her dear hubby & their animal-rescue & soup-kitchen in the 9th Ward).
So, while I will never patronize the Salvation Army or their bell-ringers if I can help it (although they used to have a KILLER thrift store on Jefferson Highway, but it’s long gone, unfortunately), and I do not support their xian bigotry that they think is “exempt” from EEOC laws or enforcement — I will never forget that they were THERE in New Orleans when nobody else was.
Please return to your discussion, I just hadda throw my two cents’ worth in.
And yes, the Leolathon is still in progress, kids. Please keep passing the good word for us, will y’all? She’s going to Shreveport to see that specialist on Tuesday, so cross yer fingers, light yer candles, make wishes to the fairie wood sprites, whatever works. Hopefully after that, we’ll have a more accurate idea of what can really realistically be done, which program/hospital will best suited for her needs, and when we can get the surgery to actually HAPPEN.
And tell Stossel and his pseudo-libertarian trolls to stick THAT in their porno moustaches and smoke it.
The simplest explanation is that Wal-mart had more traffic than Macy’s that day, and so there were more people to drop money in their buckets.
I give only to secular charities.
I give only to secular charities.
I think I did one of my first-year college students a grave disservice. He recently wrote a paper where he used one outside source and some loose and very loaded personal observations as his data. Instead of explaining that he needed more research to make his case (which, unlike Stoessel’s, was pretty interesting) and he needed to rethink his support, I should have told him he was now qualified to take over John Stoessel’s job (well, he still needs to grow the moustache and become considerably dumber).
Stossel’s methodology is flawless, his conclusions incontrovertible.
Did I mention I ride a unicorn, and have the power of invisibility?
Ha, you can’t see me!
Did I mention I ride a unicorn, and have the power of invisibility?
Ha, you can’t see me!
“I can’t tell if he’s getting stupider or nastier”(D. Sidhe)
Well, that nastier he gets, the stupider he gets.
Well, that nastier he gets, the stupider he gets.
Fair enough. Actually, I would think the most logical explanation is that people aren’t mostly buying Cheez Whiz and CDs at Macy’s and therefore tend to put stuff on the credit card. Coming out of Wal*Mart, odds are good you’ll have more change in your pocket than you did when you went in. Last I looked, bellringers don’t take Visa.
Really, all this proves is that liberals are *smarter* than conservatives, or at least smarter than John Stossel and Jack Fowler.
Annti, I got your card.
You know it’s going to take freaking *forever* to hang those, right? There’s a reason I don’t string the damned things. *Way* too much work.
I sort of assumed, for the record, that Stossel wouldn’t give a fuck about abandoned animals, which is a shame, since S.Z. is one of the most generous people I know, too.
Really, all this proves is that liberals are *smarter* than conservatives, or at least smarter than John Stossel and Jack Fowler.
Annti, I got your card.
You know it’s going to take freaking *forever* to hang those, right? There’s a reason I don’t string the damned things. *Way* too much work.I sort of assumed, for the record, that Stossel wouldn’t give a fuck about abandoned animals, which is a shame, since S.Z. is one of the most generous people I know, too.
My midwestern heart just wants to point out to Tbogg that “Sioux City” is in Iowa and “Sioux Falls” is in South Dakota. I know they are both in fly-by-land for you librul coastal, latte-sipping, Macys-shopping folks in San Diego/Fransciso/Antonio and other places with major sport franchises but we like to keep them distinct.
OK, back to bashing the Idiot With The ‘Stache.
OK, back to bashing the Idiot With The ‘Stache.
Erm, as a former South Dakotan I have to partially corroborate what jpj just said, but also correct it. Sioux City has a presence in Iowa and South Dakota. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, there’s a part of the city that’s in Nebraska too.
Macy’s in San Francisco and Walmart in Sioux Falls? Walmart is pretty much the only place to go in Sioux Falls (there’s a Target too, but they don’t have the bell ringers any more).
The only thing Stossel did was just prove once again what a tool he is.
Macy’s in San Francisco and Walmart in Sioux Falls? Walmart is pretty much the only place to go in Sioux Falls (there’s a Target too, but they don’t have the bell ringers any more).
The only thing Stossel did was just prove once again what a tool he is.
Conservatives, especially religious conservatives give a larger PERCENTAGE of their income to charity. Check your facts based on Percentage of Income not total dollar amount by state. Also, you might want to read the book by Arthur C. Brooks. “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism ” to see some hard facts about this issue.
Book Description
Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate–and more generous–than liberals
We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers?
Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.
Charity matters–not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.
About the Author
Arthur C. Brooks is professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of numerous articles and books on topics relating to charity and civic life, and his work appears frequently in the Wall Street Journal and other publications.
Besides, Left-Wing Liberals are only generous with other people’s money. (Can you say Socialism?)
Book Description
Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate–and more generous–than liberals
We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers?
Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.
Charity matters–not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.
About the Author
Arthur C. Brooks is professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of numerous articles and books on topics relating to charity and civic life, and his work appears frequently in the Wall Street Journal and other publications.
Besides, Left-Wing Liberals are only generous with other people’s money. (Can you say Socialism?)
Yeah, Arthur C. Brooks also belives that political opinions are genetic:
But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They’re not having enough of them, they haven’t for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a “fertility gap” of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%–explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
I would hazard to state that Republicans have a bigger baby problem, in that the head of their party is a big baby.
Winch that beam out of your own eye first, Prof.
But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They’re not having enough of them, they haven’t for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a “fertility gap” of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%–explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
I would hazard to state that Republicans have a bigger baby problem, in that the head of their party is a big baby.
Winch that beam out of your own eye first, Prof.
Real sociological studies state that (1) rich people generally give the LEAST amount to charity, as a percentage of income, and (2) Republicans give the next least. In addition, I don’t consider money “tithed” to churches as “charity” unless the money actually goes to soup kitchens and the like. Stossel wouldn’t know a real sociological study if it bit his mustache off.
Yeah JFreak, every conservative I know who complains about having to pay 2 cents in taxes is extremely willing to give money to charity. Well, not really, but they would be if they didn’t have to pay any taxes. Trust them. They’re *only* not giving because they just give so much to the gummint and they should use that money for the poor, except that would be welfare and those people are just a bunch of lazy parasites who should die before they’ll lift a hand to help them, and what help do they need anyway they live the high life on our money and they’re lucky because they don’t have to pay any taxes–but, only because they have to pay those damn taxes. Otherwise, they’d be more than willing to help out the subhuman parasites, in between going up to the homeless and brightening up their days by saying mean things to them. Really.
JFreak,
I know this is too late in the thread to help your poor soul but the National Center for Charitable Statistics link posted above details charitable giving as percentage of income, based on actual tax return data, and the result contradicts both Brooks and Stossel. Learn to read.
I know this is too late in the thread to help your poor soul but the National Center for Charitable Statistics link posted above details charitable giving as percentage of income, based on actual tax return data, and the result contradicts both Brooks and Stossel. Learn to read.
n addition, I don’t consider money “tithed” to churches as “charity” unless the money actually goes to soup kitchens and the like.
Amen. Tithe money that goes to building and grounds upkeep and living expenses for religious staffing is not charity any more than homeowner association fees or greens fees or private school fees. It’s a straightforward business transaction: in exchange for your money, you get a minister and a place to worship and a classroom, all things that must be paid for by someone if they are to exist at all. If you use these things, you have some obligation to help pay for their availability. It’s not charity, just like it wouldn’t be charity to hand over six hundred bucks every week to rent a ballroom at the local Ramada in which to hold services.
Also, it is not charity for you to demand your employers donate time or money to your pet causes. Nor is it charity to put up a food drive barrel in your grocery store with the expectation that customers will buy food and put it in, nor to promise to donate ten cents to cancer research for every one of your yogurt lids your customers mail to you.
Or, rather, these things are charity, but they are not *your* charity. They are acts of selflessness on the part of people who have, in most cases, less than your company does, and are willing to share what they have, knowing that in exchange for this they will likely get from you a perfunctory pat on the back while you reap PR benefits. (What was that about socialism?)
And, just for the record, if these vicariously philanthropic businessmen claim any of this charity-by-proxy as a tax benefit, they are quite simply fuckweasels.
Amen. Tithe money that goes to building and grounds upkeep and living expenses for religious staffing is not charity any more than homeowner association fees or greens fees or private school fees. It’s a straightforward business transaction: in exchange for your money, you get a minister and a place to worship and a classroom, all things that must be paid for by someone if they are to exist at all. If you use these things, you have some obligation to help pay for their availability. It’s not charity, just like it wouldn’t be charity to hand over six hundred bucks every week to rent a ballroom at the local Ramada in which to hold services.
Also, it is not charity for you to demand your employers donate time or money to your pet causes. Nor is it charity to put up a food drive barrel in your grocery store with the expectation that customers will buy food and put it in, nor to promise to donate ten cents to cancer research for every one of your yogurt lids your customers mail to you.
Or, rather, these things are charity, but they are not *your* charity. They are acts of selflessness on the part of people who have, in most cases, less than your company does, and are willing to share what they have, knowing that in exchange for this they will likely get from you a perfunctory pat on the back while you reap PR benefits. (What was that about socialism?)
And, just for the record, if these vicariously philanthropic businessmen claim any of this charity-by-proxy as a tax benefit, they are quite simply fuckweasels.
Ooooohhh, Annti. The shame you should feel. You just made me hate the Slaveation Army slightly less. Ever since I read that they asked the Shrub Administration specifically if they could employment-discriminate against gay people, I have vowed to never, never drop another penny in their effin’ x-mess kettles. Never. Then you had to write that about New Orleans. Damn, damn, damn! Well, at least I’ve held back from chewing out the poor monkey manning the kettle–after all, he isn’t the “decider!” Though it’s likely he agrees with their decisions. Feh. 
No comments:
Post a Comment