Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So much for the canard that the self-centeredness of republicans is the problem with charitable giving.

Here's a list of states, organized by 'generosity index', based on 2002 tax returns. Keep scrolling to find blue states; the first one, New York, is 26. As it comes up, the list is sorted by the 'generosity index'. You can make the blue states come to the top of the list by ordering by 'having index', i.e., wealth. Connecticut is 1st in the having index and 44th in generosity.




( 26 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 10th, 2004 10:50 am (UTC)
It is interesting to see MA, CT, MD, and NJ, the states with the highest median incomes, so far down the list.
Nov. 10th, 2004 11:36 am (UTC)
Is this adjusted for cost-of-living? I know we (M & I) would have to be a LOT less charitable if we lived in any of these states but still made the same income. FYI, we paid a whopping $55,000 for our two-bedroom house, and my rent topped out at $400 a month for a HUGE one-bedroom apartment.

Cost of living is one big reason we're staying in STL for a while. We keep talking about moving to a "real city"!
Nov. 10th, 2004 12:19 pm (UTC)
They do explain how they do it if you read through the site, but it's done as a percentage of income given to charitable orgs to percentage of income. Presumably, the people in higher cost-of-living areas make more than people in lower cost-of-living areas or they wouldn;t be able to afford to live there (there are web sites that will let you see what a given profession makes in various regions; I can tell you that a programmer working in White Plains or San Francisco makes a heck of a lot more than one working in Kansas City).

What the heck are you doing in MO, anyway? Don't you know that's a red state?
Nov. 10th, 2004 01:02 pm (UTC)
a red state??!?!?!?!?!?
Yipe! Get me outta here!!!!! Actually, it's common knowledge that the city of St. Louis is very very blue, but the outlying areas are very very red. And guess what - both cock and dog fighting are legal in MO! Also, there are no laws against beastiality in this state! Also, you can't take photographs in animal breading facilities in MO! Also, this state passed a "protection of marriage" act in the August election! What a lovely, progressive state this is...

Wait - what color is your state? And your parachute?

Nov. 10th, 2004 01:17 pm (UTC)
Re: a red state??!?!?!?!?!?
My state's blue, 60 - 40. We did, however, relect a Republican governor, again, 60 - 40, in response to the mess Dean made... Did you ever wonder why Dean sealed his gubernatorial records? Didn't know that? Maybe the LSM forgot to mention that part.

CNN has county-by-county election maps. Whew! You guys are in trouble... You need to move to VT, where Bush only carried on county.
Nov. 10th, 2004 12:07 pm (UTC)
"So much for the canard that the self-centeredness of republicans is the problem with charitable giving."

Who said that? I mean, other than you above?
Nov. 10th, 2004 12:25 pm (UTC)
Many people have said (here and elsewhere) that charitable giving will dry up now that Bush has been reelected. You said yourself that there your whole organization has been down in the last few years.
Nov. 10th, 2004 12:50 pm (UTC)
Yes, dear, but I never said anything about Reps or Dems or anyone else particularly - just "rich folk" in general. They come in all colors, you know, not just red and blue.

Hey - giving IS down, especially among our "high level" donors ($1,000 and up gifts). And of course, as has been pointed out, when people look to give less, they're gonna cut out things like art and theatre before more urgent issues like health research, aid to 3rd world country inhabitants, etc. We accept that, and work hard to convince people that free professional theatre for everyone is a worthwhile goal (not to mention our educational programs!).
Nov. 10th, 2004 12:32 pm (UTC)
Anyway, I'm glad to see you reading my garbage with a discerning, suspicious eye. You'd probably find it quite interesting to apply these same processes to the crap the mainstream media feeds you.

Nov. 10th, 2004 12:57 pm (UTC)
Re: "suspicious eye"
Ok, confession time. I rely very little on the MSM. M & I subscribe to a wide variety of publications, and I get a lot of info on the internet. But the one local daily is a total rag, and I cannot bear TV news - never did like that format. And these days, I'm always wondering whose agenda is behind any reporting I read or hear (Rupert? Are you there?)

How about a pact? We both should try to get information and opinions from both sides of the spectrum, not just the one we favor. That would mean you giving up Fox News, tho. Could you handle it? ;-)
Nov. 10th, 2004 01:42 pm (UTC)
Re: "suspicious eye"
Um... Both sides of the spectrum... But I have to give up Fox?

I actually don't look at Fox that much (although, in all honesty, I have satellite TV in my office solely so I can watch Fox when interesting things come up). It is, however, my primary source of television news.

I certainly don't trust Fox to feed me unbiased news any more than I expect any other outlet to. When Fox has a discussion, though, they do in fact always have a credible opposing viewpoint as opposed to the networks or CNN who typically (IMHO) do not.

My primary news sources are Internet news.

My news shortcuts (which admittedly contain some commentary sites) look like this...

Accuracy in Media
DRUDGE REPORT (If you've never actually been here, you might be surprised... Despite the vilification of Drudge by the left, he's quite centrist and is as happy to slag Bush as he is the left... Currently he's trying to stir up trouble with the immegration 'reform' (i.e., legalization of illegals) that Bush is pushing... Something that I absolutely disagree with and had the dems put forth a real candidate might have resulted in my *not* voting for Bush).
Digital Mass (Boston Herald)
Guardian (UK)
Keys News (Key West)
Lucianne.com™ Forum (Conservative site, tends to extremism... A conservative DU)
NPR News (Not sure what this one is)
National Review Online
Online Journalism Review
Online Mirror Newspaper (UK)
Reason Magazine
Rutland Herald (VT)
SF Examiner (SF's token conservative daily)
SF Gate (Chronicle, the widely read daily)
Santa Cruz Sentinel
Science News
Telegraph India
The Hartford Courant
The New York Times
The Washington Times
This is London! (UK)
Welcome to Mercury Center (San Jose, CA)
Wired News
Yahoo! News

So, not just a few liberal MSM sites to balance my broken-glass republican sites. Many of the sites I read on a regular basis are quite rabidly left; Santa Cruz, San Francisco.

So, over to you.
Nov. 10th, 2004 01:58 pm (UTC)
Re: "suspicious eye"
Ok, you obviously spend a LOT more time on-line than I do.

We get the Sunday "New York Times", Sierra, Preservation, Smithsonian, Scientific American, AdBusters, and a few others by subscription. I do listen to "Democracy Now" fairly regularly. On the web, I actually look at Yahoo and Google news a lot, which I like because they link over to lots of different news sources. Oh, and NPR of course (I know someone on the inside there... ;-)

What do you mean by "broken-glass republican"? I'm not familiar with that term.
Nov. 10th, 2004 04:20 pm (UTC)
Re: "suspicious eye"
It's the campanion to 'koolaid democrat'. It describes so eone who would crawl through broken glass to vote republican.

I like Google news. Yahoo! tends to be AP and Reuters feeds, which have the liberal slant.
Nov. 10th, 2004 05:04 pm (UTC)
Google rules!
Yeah, Google seems to simply report without too much of a slant either way. Which is good, because we're all really good at making up our own minds!

"It's the companion to 'koolaid democrat'. It describes so eone who would crawl through broken glass to vote republican."

LOL! And the "koolaid" would of course be the Jonestown special koolaid, right?
Nov. 10th, 2004 03:02 pm (UTC)
Oh! Forgot one...
And "The Daily Show"! Mustn't forgot Jon Stewart and co....
Nov. 12th, 2004 08:49 am (UTC)
Re: "suspicious eye"
NPR News (Not sure what this one is)

National Palestinian Radio or National Pentagon Radio, depending on which hatemail you pick...
Nov. 10th, 2004 05:07 pm (UTC)
Hey - this is completely off topic - but I went back to look at the one LJ entry of yours from last week, that had all the comments on it - there was something there I wanted to reply to, but I don't remember what it was. Anyway, did you lock it or something? Cause I can't find it.
Nov. 12th, 2004 08:51 am (UTC)
I did lock it.
Nov. 12th, 2004 08:55 am (UTC)
Oh well. It probably wasn't important anyway.
Nov. 10th, 2004 07:10 pm (UTC)
But is it a republican thing, or is it a church thing?

It might not just be a matter of red vs. blue.
Nov. 11th, 2004 05:14 am (UTC)
It is part of the culture of the South to be kind, considerate and generous, to care for your neighbors. I grew up in Arkansas. It is VERY different than the northeast.

Someone scoffed at me for putting my neighbors horses away. If it was inconvenient, why do it. He pointed out that I have no responsibility for those horses. I had to disagree. I my view of how to treat people in my community, I did have a responsibility simply because I had the ability.
Nov. 11th, 2004 08:26 am (UTC)
And how are those adorable goats? Have you seen them again?
Nov. 11th, 2004 08:25 am (UTC)
It would be interesting to know how much of the giving went to secular vs. non-secular causes...
Nov. 11th, 2004 05:08 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that too. Not that I'm calling into question the altruism of the South, but there can be a big difference in community effect if the giving was in the form of tithing to the church rather than helping the poor, the sick, the environment, etc.

Another thing that would be interesting is a more in-depth study that goes deeper than measuring by income tax returns. This may not be the best way to measure charitable giving, because not everyone declares their altruism. I never have.
Nov. 12th, 2004 08:50 am (UTC)
Um... What do you think churches do with the money they receive?
Nov. 12th, 2004 04:39 pm (UTC)
Why, slaughter chickens and goats ritualistically, of course.

I know that a percentage of the money that a church collects goes to the poor and the sick, but the churches have other priorities such as "shape federal social legislation" and monitor "the public budget process to ensure economic justice."*** Some percentage of their collections goes to advancing their social agenda. I'd imagine that a significant percentage goes into the church infrastructure that has no bearing on the 'sick & poor' causes, such as running Sunday schools, funding improvements and restorations to churches, etc. And they absolutely have a right to do so.

I just believe that an agency directly focused on helping the poor & sick will spend much less of a percentage of their funds on infrastructure and tertiary causes.

This is my hypothesis; I haven't looked at any numbers. But there must be some reason why the states with the most charitable people are also the states with the poorest people. The money must be draining out somewhere.

*** From the Catholic Charities mission statement.
( 26 comments — Leave a comment )


Bjamexza Q. Pyndejo / James O. Payne, Jr.
Bxiie Q. Pyndejo

Latest Month

May 2013