When Did Republicanism Go Bad?

Sure:



At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare. Finally, we show that any remaining differences in giving are an artifact of Republicans' greater propensity to give to religious causes, particularly their own church. Taken together, our results counter the notion that political conservatives compensate for their opposition to governmental intervention by supporting private charities.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033


DO YOU BUBS?

 

You only continue to prove my point with your own sources.

Giving to your church IS giving to charity. Your MIT study can only claim that liberals are equivalent if you discount church giving. You LOOOOOOSE again.

Once again from your own link:

Still waiting for proof showing that Democracts make more money than Republicans.......

 

How did Brooks screw up?

One reason for this anomaly could be the unorthodox way in which the SCCBS [the 2000 Social Capital Benchmark Survey] asks about ideology, which differs from the standard phrasing used in the ANES and GSS. The ideology question wording in the 2000 SCCBS reads: “Thinking politically and socially, how would you describe your own general outlook–as being very conservative, moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road, moderately liberal or very liberal?” (emphasis added). It is likely that this wording compels many economic liberals to identify as social conservatives, and many economic conservatives to identify as social liberals; because social liberals tend to be wealthier, this would explain why liberals in the SCCBS are wealthier. Certainly the wording affects the distribution on the ideology question. Whereas 33 and 34% of respondents in the 2000 ANES and GSS respectively identified as conservatives, the percentage jumps to 43 in the SCCBS. For these reasons, it seems reasonable to ask whether these findings can be replicated using another dataset.

Where do liberals and conservatives give their money?

While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to do- nate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.

And when do they give?

Charitable contributions fluctuate based on the political landscape: Democrats (Republicans) donate less money when a Republican (Democrat) occupies the White House. Conversely, having a co-partisan in the White House increases the average and total donations to nonprofits at the state level.


http://themonkeycage.org/2012/10/18...p-and-charitable-giving-in-the-united-states/

 

Not surprised you didn't answer my question.

 

You claim to be educated REALLY?

That's NOT what the study says Bubs, try again

We are not the first to ask whether partisanship affects giving. In 2006, Arthur Brooks made headlines with a provocative finding from his book Who Really Cares: despite stereotypes of liberals caring more about the poor, conservatives were purported to be more generous when it comes to giving to charities. These results stirred the political pot by taking “bleeding heart liberals” to task for their stinginess when it comes to their own money. . . . we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving, conditional on observable characteristics. Further, when we use partisanship rather than ideology to measure liberalism, there is no statistical difference in giving, regardless of whether we adjust for observable characteristics.



lol

- - - Updated - - -

Ask it Bubs, don't beat around the bush. WHO is in office determines the giving, is THAT your posit? Or are you just going to keep playing games as always?

 

Yes it does. Its says that the only reason Republicans give more is because they have higher religiosity. That is the entire crux of their argument. The study is a sham from the get go. Should we discount liberals who give to charity because they do it for tax credit purposes? What the hell does motivation have to do with ANYTHING? I just bolded the parts in your OWN link stating that Republicans give more to charity.

You lost with your OWN links. How unbelievable illiterate do you have to be to post links which actually bolster the opponents argument.

Debating with you is like babysitting a toddler. It amuses me watching you waddle and meander around and stumble while trying to do more than one thing at a time and completely incapable of critical thinking skills and you have the logical aptitude of one as well.

 

MORE babble from you. I'm shocked

Michele Margolis and Michael Sances write:

Conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity.

 

Pretty much in the same category as the idiots who post "Obama is the worst President ever!"

 

Before you jump on someone's case about their ability with statistics, perhaps you should work on your own ability with grammar. After all, in forums like this, your poor understanding of the English language is much more apparent.

 

They discounted charitable giving to churches. I posted several sources and you keep referencing ONE MIT study which literally had to change the definition of charity to get numbers they liked.

Once again: the study did NOT take into account operational costs and salaries for nonprofits that liberals did but they discounted church giving because some of that money goes to salaries and operations costs.

The study then says that even though Republicans give more (and the study does in fact say that Republicans give more) it doesn't really count because they are doing it for religious reasons. The same study doesn't seem to be bothered with liberals who might be giving for tax write off purposes. It is literally the ONLY study that has come to that conclusion. Virtually all other studies have consistently shown that Republicans give a higher percentage of their income and they donate more time as well. They even donate more blood.

Still waiting for you to back up that claim about Democrats making more money than Republicans.

- - - Updated - - -

The grammar nazi card.............pretty much some up who you are. And you criticizing my grammar after posting this sentence is just rich

 

nm......double post

 

We are not the first to ask whether partisanship affects giving. In 2006, Arthur Brooks made headlines with a provocative finding from his book Who Really Cares: despite stereotypes of liberals caring more about the poor, conservatives were purported to be more generous when it comes to giving to charities. These results stirred the political pot by taking “bleeding heart liberals” to task for their stinginess when it comes to their own money. . . . we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving, conditional on observable characteristics. Further, when we use partisanship rather than ideology to measure liberalism, there is no statistical difference in giving, regardless of whether we adjust for observable characteristics.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

 

It didn't. If you'll notice, the only people claiming that are Democrats. Doesn't that tell you something? It should.

Oh really? Then please explain to me why your tolerant left wing buddies went out of their way to destroy Herman Cain last election cycle with the same predictable card they played against Clarence Thomas in the early '90s. Herman Cain was immensely popular among the most conservative members of the GOP voting base. He was a Tea Party favorite. And he was twice as black as Barack Obama who - lest you forget - is half white.

So go ahead. Let's hear it. If you can explain this without using a straw man I'll be very impressed.



For the record, I have no doubt that you want very badly to believe what you just typed. But wishing does not make it so. The facts simply are what they are. And if you try to ignore or alter them because you find them uncomfortable then you will find yourself on the wrong side of reality.

 

Republicanism went bad when it forsook its conservative/libertarian base and became a pale shadow of the Democratic Party. The difference between the two parties is so small that they really constitute one party representing the fusion of Big Business and Big Govt. Conservatives and libertarians in America don't have an organized party.

 

They did no such thing Bubs. I'll note you have NOTHING but right wing noise to fall back on. YOU can't do ANYTHING but try to muddy the picture, proving the op's posit, LOL

PLEASE just ONE policy conservatives have EVER (HEY I'm NOT saying it didn't happen, but PLEASE give me SOMETHING) been on the correct side of history in the US? Pretty please?

 

As the GOP has went FARRRR right the last 20+ years *shaking head*

Libertarianism is just myths and fairy tales, no nation EVER to use it. The closer a nation get to it the more inequality!

 

You keep posting that and it doesn't change a thing. They deliberately changed the definition of charitable giving to suit their needs. They discounted religious giving because of operational costs and salaries yet they did not make that same assumption about non-religious nonprofits. They deliberately skewed the study which is why to date they are the ONLY study that has shown that. If you read comments by actual statisticians on this various study you would see that they don't even get their stats right. Religious people are 3 times more likely to give more to religous charities (which by the way are not even churches in many cases) but they give 2/3 as much to secular organizations......that still puts them WAAAAAY ahead of liberals.

The most efficient charities with the lowest overhead are in fact Christian charities.......not secular nonprofits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2011/11/30/the-200-largest-u-s-charities-for-2011/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2011/11/30/most-charitable-bang-for-the-donors-buck-2/

Its like I am using a Pwnage machine gun against you. Its literally overheating from the nonstop usage.

And I am STILL waiting for you to back up your claim about Democrats making more money.

 

By becoming Democat lite.

Of course you would think Libertarianism is a myth since the country was founded on it and the left has vilified it. You know, old white men and all that of the far left racial obsession.

 

Nope. Not a grammar nazi. But when you ignorantly can't figure out the difference between voting FOR a Democrat versus voting Democrat, you sound like a goober. Now, the questions is, are you an intentional goober or just a goober that doesn't know the difference between an adjective and a noun?

 

Went out of the way? lol

You probably think they did that to Half termer Palin too right? Just because they were horrible candudates, doesn't mean they were "got ya"d

 

You lost all credibility on the topic of grammar with the post that literally came before the one you started criticizing me.

Notice anything missing their buddy?

 

Still not comprehending the difference, huh? Well, don't feel badly. You're in plenty of company with other Limbaugh and Hannity spoon fed lemmings. The difference is that Limbaugh and Hannity DO know the difference. You, on the other hand, simply don't.

 

Avoiding your shame? Your command of grammar is just as AWFUL, HORRIBLE, DISGUSTING and whatever other words you might want to use as mine is.

Just so people see YOUR sentence prior to the one criticizing my grammar.

 

Still not seeing it, huh? I already gave you one hint, but I'll repeat it.

Adjective or noun?

 

Oh I see it. I just plan on enjoying your hypocrisy for as long as I can. And by the way voting for X party and voting X party are interchangeble and used widely in parlance. So yes one is more grammatically correct than the other but that something tons of people do IRREGARDLESS of what you might say.

YOU"RE HINTE:

dangling........