Arthur C Brooks is a social scientist from Syracuse University, and a registered Independent. A few years back, Brooks undertook a project that took him completely by surprise. He wanted to prove once and for all that liberals are more caring and compassionate when it comes to charity. He ended up suffering from reality. He found that when it came to giving, conservatives give more time, money, and blood than liberals do. In fact, conservatives give a higher percentage of their income than liberals do.
The stats will blow your mind even if you have always felt that conservatives were more giving than liberals. Liberal incomes at that time averaged 6% more than conservative incomes but conservatives gave more to charity than liberals. (1600 vs 1227) Conservatives also spend more time working for charities than liberals and donate more blood than liberals.
In the 2004 election, states who voted for John Kerry, the voters donated less to charity than in states that voted for George Bush. There were 25 states who gave more than the average amount of money. Bush carried 24 of those. In the 10 states where Bush got 60% of the vote or more , the average given to charity was 3.5%. In states that Bush got less than 40% of the vote, the average charitable contributions were 1.9%.
They don’t put their money where their mouth is. People who reject the notion that government has a responsibility to equalize income gave 4 times more to charity than liberals who agree with that premise. Four times!
Not surprisingly, Brooks found that the biggest motivation to giving is religion. The number of Godless liberals have quadrupled since the 1970s. And why not? Liberals cannot get into Heaven. So why bother? Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi at the Golden Gate explaining why killing innocent babies is a good thing? Going down? While liberals sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya and making up cute little slogans, conservatives are taking care of business.
In 2000, Al Gore gave just .2% of his income to charity. Liberals believe that charitable giving is a function of government and they happily give away other people’s money to charity. And why not? Liberals don’t pay as much of their income in taxes as conservatives do.
Warren Buffett, the poster boy for the liberal’s desire to raise taxes on the rich, often proclaims he does not pay enough in taxes. Some conservatives point out they he can pay more taxes anytime he wishes to. But the real argument should be, if Buffett wants to pay more taxes, why doesn’t he just pay the 1.05 billion he already owes?
And he isn’t alone. Just look at the list of liberals who cry out for more taxes, while not paying their own. Tom Daschle, former majority leader of the senate, Charles Rangel, who headed the House ways and Means committee, the committee that writes tax laws, Obama appointees, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Timmy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Nancy Killefer, Capricia Marshall. And let’s not forget Sen Al Franken, who claims the only reason he didn’t pay his taxes to multiple states was that he didn’t know he owed them. Why did he think New York State sued him for failing to pay his taxes?
Ohio Senator Sherrod brown failed to pay property taxes in Ohio for three years in a row and didn’t pay them until the property was listed in a Sheriff’s sale. And Teddy Kennedy, the champion of the death tax, didn’t pay much when his daddy died, because the Kennedy trust funds are located in Fiji. And Harry reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, all cried that Romney needed to produce more than the 2 years of income tax returns he made public. Between the three of them, not one single year’s taxes have ever been released.
Yes, the liberals are full of compassion, but only when it’s someone elses money.