|

List Price: $25.00
Our Price: $9.95
You Save: 60%

Product Details:
Type: Hardcover
Item#: c6989
ISBN#: 0465008216

Reader Rating:

read the reviews
submit a review
|
|
Demolished, with hard data: the myth that liberals are more generous and "compassionate" than conservatives
Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide -Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Arthur C. Brooks
When President Bush coined the term "compassionate conservatism," many conservatives were understandably miffed. It seemed to concede to liberals that traditional conservatives are indeed a greedy, selfish bunch - unlike liberals, with their "commitment" to the poor and disadvantaged. Now comes an amazing new book that buries that old canard forever. In Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide - Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Arthur C. Brooks uses hard data to prove that, when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives - especially religious conservatives - are far more generous than liberals, who seem to believe that "compassion" begins and ends with voting for government handouts.
(continued from above)
When Brooks started his research, he fully expected to find that political liberals would be the most privately charitable people. When early findings led to the opposite conclusion, he assumed he had made an error. He re-ran analyses and got new data, but in the end he had no option but to change his views. It seems that many of those who say that charity is the responsibility of private individuals instead of governments truly practice what they preach. Brooks also identifies the forces behind American charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one's own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals-not government-offer the best solution to social ills.
Get the data and documentation behind these and
many other revelations in Who Really Cares
- Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes
- Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%
- People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally "progressive causes" such as the arts and the environment
- Conservative "red" states give away far more of their incomes than liberal "blue" states do
- Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches - religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities
- Religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time. For instance, a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person
- Religious people are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly
- A working poor family without welfare support gives, on average, more than three times as much money to charity each year as a family with the same total income that receives welfare support. In other words, poverty does not discourage charity in America -- but welfare does
- People raised in intact and religious families are more charitable than those who are not. For instance, married parents are 9 percentage points more likely to give money than divorced parents, and 29 points more likely than never-married parents
- Charitable giving spurs the economy: at the national level, a $1 increase in giving per person stimulates a $19 increase in GDP per capita
- Americans give far more money and are far more likely to volunteer their time than citizens of any European country. For example, the average American family gives three and a half times as much as a French family, seven times as much as a German family, and 14 times as much as an Italian family
- Charitable giving and volunteering improve physical health and happiness, and lead to better citizenship -- whereheas many government policies that discourage private charitable behavior have negative effects
In short, Who Really Cares demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are far more compassionate than their liberals - and that charity matters, not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole.
Shattering Stereotypes
"This remarkable book documents the dramatic gap between those who talk about caring and those who actually care. The shattering of stereotypes will be as upsetting to some Americans as it will be encouraging to others."- The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor-in-chief of First Things
"Who Really Cares is not just about how we contribute time and money; it is also about how our culture may affect our politics and our economy. It is the best study of charity that I have read, and I think you will think that as well." - From the foreword by James Q. Wilson

Click here to submit a review
Liberals on average live in (more expensive) urban areas, while nearly 50% of all conservatives live in the (less expensive) south. So what I want to know is, did the writer compare apples to apples? Are his income groups set up to account for cost of living? When calculating percentage of income given to charity does he use income after taxes and cost of living?
According to CNN cost of living calculator:
Salary in New York (Manhattan) NY: $100,000
Comparable salary in Marshall County AL: $43,046.48
If you move from New York (Manhattan) NY to Marshall County AL...
Groceries will cost: 28.77% less
Housing will cost: 78.669% less
Utilities will cost: 41.379% less
Transportation will cost: 20.983% less
Healthcare will cost: 39.198% less
So at the end of the day, all those 'rich' city dwellers have a lot less money to give away than it seems. Rents are higher, food costs more, taxes are higher, etc.
If he does, then he needs to compare New York liberals who make $100,000 with Alabama conservatives who make closer to $40,000. I think we'll see a much different picture.
Previous reviewer says rich New Yorkers have less to give because cost to live there are higher and those living in Alabama can give more because they make less money. Sounds like more stupid liberal logic to me. Those in Alabama making less also have a commensurate cost of living to their wages thus they do not have more to give just because their cost of living is less as they are making less money. Just so happens the record will show and this book backs it up with the facts that those who have less to give are giving more just as it states. I have personally seen this in my lifetime as well.
Diane Pankratz
An honest depiction of the facts!
Reminds me of the joke where the conservative gives a homeless man his own $$ and a business card to offer the man a JOB! The liberal is so impressed that he also reaches in the pocket of the Conservative, takes his money and gives it to the homeless guy along with directions to the WELFARE office!!!
The person who questioned cost of living compared to giving answered his own question. New Yorkers earn 132% more at the same job as someone in Alabama.
On the contrary; Hollywood liberals earn 1,000% more than anyone in Alabama, do they GIVE 1,000% more to charities especially on a consistent basis as we lower income class do? I give approx $3,000 per year, that would mean that all Hollywood elite's and the Clintons would give $300,000 every year; doubt it. Only when giving goes along with the CAMERA do I suspect they give; or to lower their tax burden. Just a thought.
I live in a lower income area in Florida, guess what? The cost of our housing, taxes, insurance, cars and food are very high. Don't talk about gas prices, that is specific to your own elected democratic government taxation!
|
|