Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Most Generous States in USA
motowndowntown Joined Wed 11/19/08 Posts: 21947	Wed 08/22/12 04:49 PM
Again, throw out the top and the bottom and you'll see that all the states average around the same. Utah is an exception because the Morman religion requires it's members to give ten percent to charity, ie the Morman church. That said, all people in all states do not give the same. The stated percentages are averages. And all the states average to around four or four and a half percent. So take your right wing B.S. and donate it to someone else.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48973	Wed 08/22/12 04:54 PM
On his website, U.S. radio personality Neal Boortz says the following about the statistics cited in the OP. A new study has been released by the Chronicle of Philanthropy on charitable giving in the United States. Based on IRS data from 2008, what it boils down to is this: Conservatives are more charitable people. They voluntarily give away more of their earnings than liberals. So, you are saying the poorest states have more conservatives and the richer states are more liberals? Please provide a more current viable link to prove if that is true. I did not make such a claim. Since the statistics used by the Chronicle of Philanthropy date back to 2008, I used poverty statistics for 2008 provided by the U.S. government. I also provided links to my sources. Those statistics show that the most generous people are not necessarily the wealthiest. Then your denial of claim and use of outdated statistics cannot be used as proof for your post. I did not claim that the red states had the most poor people. I simply demonstrated that the level of charitable giving does not necessarily depend on income level. As for the the date of the aforementioned philanthropy statistics, your argument is with the Chronicle of Philanthropy. I merely reported a story that ABC News recently reported. Because the report from the Chronicle of Philanthropy pertains to statistics from the year 2008, I used poverty statistics from the same year.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48973	Wed 08/22/12 05:07 PM
Again, throw out the top and the bottom and you'll see that all the states average around the same. Utah is an exception because the Morman religion requires it's members to give ten percent to charity, ie the Morman church. That said, all people in all states do not give the same. The stated percentages are averages. And all the states average to around four or four and a half percent. So take your right wing B.S. and donate it to someone else. The OP of this thread is about a story reported by ABC News. I didn't create the aforementioned statistics. I just reported them. I also quoted what some professional commentators have said in response to the report published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. If the red state/blue state difference in philanthropy isn't due to income levels, then what is the difference due to?

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Wed 08/22/12 05:07 PM
On his website, U.S. radio personality Neal Boortz says the following about the statistics cited in the OP. A new study has been released by the Chronicle of Philanthropy on charitable giving in the United States. Based on IRS data from 2008, what it boils down to is this: Conservatives are more charitable people. They voluntarily give away more of their earnings than liberals. So, you are saying the poorest states have more conservatives and the richer states are more liberals? Please provide a more current viable link to prove if that is true. I did not make such a claim. Since the statistics used by the Chronicle of Philanthropy date back to 2008, I used poverty statistics for 2008 provided by the U.S. government. I also provided links to my sources. Those statistics show that the most generous people are not necessarily the wealthiest. Then your denial of claim and use of outdated statistics cannot be used as proof for your post. I did not claim that the red states had the most poor people. I simply demonstrated that the level of charitable giving does not necessarily depend on income level. As for the the date of the aforementioned philanthropy statistics, your argument is with the Chronicle of Philanthropy. I merely reported a story that ABC News recently reported. Because the report from the Chronicle of Philanthropy pertains to statistics from the year 2008, I used poverty statistics from the same year. Ok, in the future please try to state your claims more clearly and provide updated hyper-links to support them.

motowndowntown Joined Wed 11/19/08 Posts: 21947	Wed 08/22/12 05:17 PM
Again, throw out the top and the bottom and you'll see that all the states average around the same. Utah is an exception because the Morman religion requires it's members to give ten percent to charity, ie the Morman church. That said, all people in all states do not give the same. The stated percentages are averages. And all the states average to around four or four and a half percent. So take your right wing B.S. and donate it to someone else. The OP of this thread is about a story reported by ABC News. I didn't create the aforementioned statistics. I just reported them. I also quoted what some professional commentators have said in response to the report published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. If the red state/blue state difference in philanthropy isn't due to income levels, then what is the difference due to? Again, average them out. There isn't that much of a difference. It's a non story.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48973	Wed 08/22/12 05:25 PM
I did not claim that the red states had the most poor people. I simply demonstrated that the level of charitable giving does not necessarily depend on income level. As for the the date of the aforementioned philanthropy statistics, your argument is with the Chronicle of Philanthropy. I merely reported a story that ABC News recently reported. Because the report from the Chronicle of Philanthropy pertains to statistics from the year 2008, I used poverty statistics from the same year. Ok, in the future please try to state your claims more clearly and provide updated hyper-links to support them. I have no control over the year of the statistics that ABC News reported recently. I had to make sure that the year of the poverty statistics that I cited matched the year of the philanthropy statistics. If I am not mistaken, the statistics reported by the Chronicle of Philanthropy (and then ABC News) came from data provided by the IRS. I do not know how quickly the IRS provides yearly statistics to the public. The year 2008 may be the most recent year of statistics that the IRS provided. If you do not agree with the way that I or someone else interprets those statistics, then you are free to come up with your own interpretation.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48973	Wed 08/22/12 05:29 PM
Again, throw out the top and the bottom and you'll see that all the states average around the same. Throw out the top and bottom? You want to get rid of statistics? Why?

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Wed 08/22/12 05:29 PM Edited by alleoops on Wed 08/22/12 05:29 PM
Again, throw out the top and the bottom and you'll see that all the states average around the same. Utah is an exception because the Morman religion requires it's members to give ten percent to charity, ie the Morman church. That said, all people in all states do not give the same. The stated percentages are averages. And all the states average to around four or four and a half percent. So take your right wing B.S. and donate it to someone else. The OP of this thread is about a story reported by ABC News. I didn't create the aforementioned statistics. I just reported them. I also quoted what some professional commentators have said in response to the report published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. If the red state/blue state difference in philanthropy isn't due to income levels, then what is the difference due to? Again, average them out. There isn't that much of a difference. It's a non story. See what happens when you don't use valid hyper-links. And stay away from the ad-hominems too.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48973	Wed 08/22/12 05:32 PM
See what happens when you don't use valid hyper-links. And stay away from the ad-hominems too. I didn't know that a hyperlink to a recent ABC News story wasn't valid. Also, I don't eat hominy.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Wed 08/22/12 05:34 PM
Well my take on this is red states are full of religious nut jobs who donate to the church and as a result the figures are slightly higher in the red states.

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Wed 08/22/12 05:36 PM
See what happens when you don't use valid hyper-links. And stay away from the ad-hominems too. I didn't know that a hyperlink to a recent ABC News story wasn't valid. Also, I don't eat hominy.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48973	Wed 08/22/12 05:50 PM
In his commentary about the aforementioned philanthropy statistics, Jeff Jacoby mentions the result of the research conducted by economist Arthur C. Brooks (who has his PhD in in policy analysis): Though there is a strong link between religious belief and philanthropy, it wasn't just churches the conservatives were giving to. "They gave more to every type of cause and charity: health charities, education organizations, international aid groups, and human welfare agencies," Brooks noted. They even gave more "to traditionally liberal causes, such as the environment and the arts." None of this was what Brooks had anticipated when he began his research. "I expected to find that political liberals … would turn out to be the most privately charitable people," he says. "So when my early findings led to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error…. In the end, I had no option but to change my views." By the way, I have no idea if either Jacoby or Brooks eats hominy.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 08/23/12 12:58 AM
On his website, U.S. radio personality Neal Boortz says the following about the statistics cited in the OP. A new study has been released by the Chronicle of Philanthropy on charitable giving in the United States. Based on IRS data from 2008, what it boils down to is this: Conservatives are more charitable people. They voluntarily give away more of their earnings than liberals. Liberals want to give away other peoples money. I have to admit,, though in theory it is equal Id have a hard time parting with 20 dollars if I was down to my last 100 and not as hard parting with 200 if I had 1000 and none at all parting with 2 million if I had 10 how much one is already struggling before they give, probably plays a factor,,, If I had 10 million I would be pretty mad if Someone took 2 million. That's a lot of money. so is the remaining 8 million its not gonna exactly put me at risk of starving, like twenty might if I only had 100

TJN Joined Sun 12/02/07 Posts: 6745	Thu 08/23/12 07:11 AM
On his website, U.S. radio personality Neal Boortz says the following about the statistics cited in the OP. A new study has been released by the Chronicle of Philanthropy on charitable giving in the United States. Based on IRS data from 2008, what it boils down to is this: Conservatives are more charitable people. They voluntarily give away more of their earnings than liberals. Liberals want to give away other peoples money. I have to admit,, though in theory it is equal Id have a hard time parting with 20 dollars if I was down to my last 100 and not as hard parting with 200 if I had 1000 and none at all parting with 2 million if I had 10 how much one is already struggling before they give, probably plays a factor,,, If I had 10 million I would be pretty mad if Someone took 2 million. That's a lot of money. so is the remaining 8 million its not gonna exactly put me at risk of starving, like twenty might if I only had 100 How do you know the expenses of the one having 10 million? I'm sure they are different than the one with $100.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48973	Thu 08/23/12 08:03 AM
If I had 10 million I would be pretty mad if Someone took 2 million. That's a lot of money. so is the remaining 8 million its not gonna exactly put me at risk of starving, like twenty might if I only had 100 How do you know the expenses of the one having 10 million? I'm sure they are different than the one with $100. There is a difference between expenses and needs. A wealthy person may want something that is expensive but not necessary.

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Thu 08/23/12 09:58 AM
Why does it always seem like it's a contest over who gives to charity the most? Why can't it just be enough to give when you can?

TJN Joined Sun 12/02/07 Posts: 6745	Thu 08/23/12 10:24 AM
If I had 10 million I would be pretty mad if Someone took 2 million. That's a lot of money. so is the remaining 8 million its not gonna exactly put me at risk of starving, like twenty might if I only had 100 How do you know the expenses of the one having 10 million? I'm sure they are different than the one with $100. There is a difference between expenses and needs. A wealthy person may want something that is expensive but not necessary. That doesn't answer my question. People who aren't wealthy may want something expensive but not necessary.

TJN Joined Sun 12/02/07 Posts: 6745	Thu 08/23/12 10:25 AM
Why does it always seem like it's a contest over who gives to charity the most? Why can't it just be enough to give when you can? Ask ABC news. They seemed it was worthy of a news story.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 08/23/12 10:27 AM
On his website, U.S. radio personality Neal Boortz says the following about the statistics cited in the OP. A new study has been released by the Chronicle of Philanthropy on charitable giving in the United States. Based on IRS data from 2008, what it boils down to is this: Conservatives are more charitable people. They voluntarily give away more of their earnings than liberals. Liberals want to give away other peoples money. I have to admit,, though in theory it is equal Id have a hard time parting with 20 dollars if I was down to my last 100 and not as hard parting with 200 if I had 1000 and none at all parting with 2 million if I had 10 how much one is already struggling before they give, probably plays a factor,,, If I had 10 million I would be pretty mad if Someone took 2 million. That's a lot of money. so is the remaining 8 million its not gonna exactly put me at risk of starving, like twenty might if I only had 100 How do you know the expenses of the one having 10 million? I'm sure they are different than the one with $100. it doesnt mater, IF one has 8 million dollars, they can downsize quite comfortabely still 'owing' whatever expenses, and still not having to worry about starving not to mention the option of filing bankruptcy and keepint millions to live off of,,

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Thu 08/23/12 10:35 AM
Why does it always seem like it's a contest over who gives to charity the most? Why can't it just be enough to give when you can? Ask ABC news. They seemed it was worthy of a news story. I'm asking people here who seem to think it's a contest.