"Liberals are cheapskates"

That's not me saying it, though I've thought it for a long time and think it now. 

No, that quote is from every liberal's favorite New York Time's columnist, and he seems to be just warming up:

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Ya gotta love Mr. Brooks' honesty.  Refreshing.  Meanwhile, nothing is more refreshing than Don Surber's related comments:

The late West Virginia columnist L.T. Anderson once observed that it is easy to be generous with other people’s money.

Which explain why Dick Cheney can give away $6 million in one year to charities (75% of his income) while his predecessor could not even give away $1,000 one year and why his successor averaged $369 a year in such donations (0.25% of income).

The liberal compassion is taxing others to give to others.

There is one thing that liberals are most generous in doling out.  One commodity given where they have no peers.

Guilt.

Which is ironic given Kristof's column today.

The guilt dolers ought to be the guilt laden.

Comments

[Morgan K Freeberg]

As Christmas draws closer, this paradigm with the Grinch and the Whos makes more and more sense to me. Just like the plucking of the Christmas trees and presents and stockings and crumbs from the Who households, the devastation of the election last month is absolute. Complete. No-holds-barred. Up the chimney he rose.

And yet, the Whos who have nothing, are gathered in a circle, hand-in-hand, tall ones, short ones, fat ones, skinny ones, singing that Rahul Forest song. And the Grinch-like liberals with that big ol' sleigh full of crap at the top of the mountain, who ought to be delighted beyond measure, are just confused, frustrated, upset, bewildered, wet, cold, shivering.

And leaving it to that poor li'l tiny dog Max to haul around this enormous bag. That part is fitting...I wonder if that thing about the heart expanding several sizes is about to happen now. I tend to doubt it.

[renee]

Interesting and revealing report...I also wonder which party has the largest tax base...I'm betting that not only do conservatives give more, but that they also pay more taxes?

[remowill]

When George Bush got into office there was a surplus of money. When George Bush left office, we are in a depression.
How do you explain that?