New Study Shows Democrats Are More Scrooge-like Than Republicans

Maybe all these rich socialists (like Stephen King and even Obama) are crying out for higher taxes because they feel guilty about how little they actually give to charity. A new study done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy gives pretty much unmistakable evidence that Democrats are selfish. The eight states with the highest rate of charitable giving (after all expenses were paid… including taxes) all supported John McCain in 2008. And, you guessed it, the bottom seven states for charitable giving all supported Obama. This should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention.

If you believe it’s the government’s job to take care of people, why would you give to charity…? So for all of their rhetoric about loving poor people and wanting to do good for the little guy, Democrats don’t actually care about other people enough to give their own money to help them. “Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? Are there no social service offices?”

But surely this research is inaccurate. Maybe a lot of Democrats are poor—they don’t have money to give to others because they need their money for their own families. Well, the researchers thought of that possibility. They took their numbers from IRS data for taxpayers who made $50,000/year and above. None of the people in this study were poor.

One of the major explanations given for the data was the fact that more people in red states are church-going. Which means they tend to pay tithes and believe it their duty to be charitable. And no doubt this is true. Atheists and agnostics may hate this fact… they like to talk about how people can have morals without God, but, when it comes down to it, non-religious people just don’t have as much incentive to help other people. So apparently they don’t.

I read an article a while back about an atheist who was suing Henderson County (Texas) for a public nativity scene he thought was offensive or something. He had to back down though because of health problems. When local Christians found out, they decided to raise money for his medical expenses because he didn’t have health insurance. I just can’t see an atheist organization doing the same if one of their opponents cut a protest short for health reasons. An atheist commenting on the events made some interesting points:

Atheists who were there for Greene [the atheist protestor] in his time of need were nowhere to be found.

I don’t know if a fundraiser would’ve been appropriate in this situation, but this is a serious issue that we don’t talk about (or act upon) very often: How should we respond when people in our community (online, local, whatever) need help? Are we going to be there for them emotionally? Do we take them into our homes if they need a place to go? Do we offer them financial support if they can’t pay their medical bills?

You can criticize . . . Christians for their faulty reasoning, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that they have answers to all of those questions: Yes. Yes. And Yes.

In their mind, that’s what it means to be a Christian.

Unless we find a way to replicate that sense of community without the need for supernatural nonsense, churches aren’t going to dwindle in number anytime soon.

And there you have it.

Christians and people who hold to traditional morality are are just being consistent with their beliefs when they are charitable. And non-Christians and leftists are just being consistent with their beliefs when they decide to play Scrooge McDuck. Doesn’t mean there aren’t both kinds on both sides. The question is: who is being more consistent, and, consequently, which perspective is of more actual benefit to the world?

0 responses


    Are you aware that the Saudis are boycotting American products? In
    addition, they are gouging us on oil prices.
    Shouldn’t we return the favor?

    Can’t we take control of our own destiny and let these giant oil importers
    know who REALLY generates their profits, their livings? How about leaving
    American Dollars in America and reduce the import/export deficit?
    An appealing remedy might be to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up
    your car you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia .
    Just purchase gas from companies that don’t import their oil from the
    Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill up my
    tank, I’m sending my money to people who I get the impression want me, my
    family and my friends dead. The following gas companies import Middle
    Eastern oil:

    Shell………………………………. 205,742,000 barrels
    Chevron/Texaco………………… 144,332,000 barrels
    Exxon /Mobil…………………… 130,082,000 barrels
    Marathon/Speedway…………. 117,740,000 barrels
    Amoco…………………………… 62,231,000 barrels

    And CITGO oil is imported from Venezuela who’s Dictator Hugo Chavez hates
    America and openly avows our economic destruction! (We pay Chavez’s regime
    nearly $10 Billion per year in oil revenues!)

    The U.S. Currently imports 5,517,000 barrels of crude oil per day from OPEC.
    If you do the math at $100 per barrel, that’s over $550 million PER DAY
    ($200 BILLION per year!) handed over to OPEC, many of whose members are our
    confirmed enemies!!!!! It won’t stop here – oil prices could go to $200 a
    barrel or higher if we keep buying their product.

    Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:
    Sunoco…………………….0 barrels
    Conoco…………………….0 barrels
    Sinclair……………………..0 barrels
    BP/Phillips………………..0 barrels
    Hess…………………………0 barrels
    ARC0……………………….0 barrels
    Maverick…………………..0 barrels
    Flying J……………………..0 barrels
    Valero……………………….0 barrels
    Murphy Oil USA *……..0 barrels

    All of this information is available from the U.S. Department of Energy and
    each company is required to state where they get their oil and how much they
    are importing.

    • I’m not the least bit happy about this either, but when your parents left you 21,700 of now XOM , I guess you simply shut up!

    • Well done as usual, Raymond. To those clowns calling you a liar and claiming you get your info from Rush and Beck, there it is you morons, U.S. Department of Energy. Read it and weep rpasley and the rest of you tunnelvision liberals.Again great job Raymond. I only wish there were more like you out there who truly care about this country and are willing to stand up for it!

    • Thanks Ray, good info, and top rate humor. We need you on late night TV. Do some research on Deuterium reactors, and why we are not moving ahead with funding research into their use. I think they are the answer to all of our static energy needs for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, Ill fuel up at one of the providers you mentioned. Oh and thanks for your service, Im a Vietnam Vet myself.

  2. I rather have personal problems in Christian/Judaism America than in atheist/agnostic Europe! I am bound to find someone who cares here.

  3. Atheists are under the illusion that they are the smart ones because do not believe in the supernatural. However, this is really just the use of God-given intelligence to deny the existence of the Being that gave them that intelligence in the first place. Ironic isn’t it?

    • Thats true but what they can’t do is understand all the evidence that disputes theories such as evolution. They think they are smart because they can parrot SOME of the scientific evidence while not understanding the bulk of it

      • IF your belief or non belief rests on where human beings/homo sapiens came from – you are lost. It matters not one whit if we were dropped off from an alien spacecraft, came up from the slime, or God came down and made us out of the mud. Only very ignorant people believe that man has been around only about 4 or 5,000 years. There is too much evidence that says people, pretty much just like us today but without the technology, have been around for as long as 100,000 years or more. The “story’s” in the bible are just that, story’s that try to explain, in the old testament – the Hebrew’s personal relation to God the creator – and man’s relation to other men. As a moral set of rules for man to live by, there are none better.

        That we came from somewhere is a given, pretty much. There is NO proof of evolution just as there is NO proof of creationism – both are theories. Old bones turned to rock don’t prove anything except that there were “people” that seem to have a slight relation to other animals or humans on this earth in suggested physical make up. IF the Bible were absolutely correct – “I” want to know where the dinosaurs are in the book – they’d be hard to overlook, it would seem to me.

        • Christians … 44rd11 is partially right. Evolutionary belief vs creation is not a requirement for Christianity. He completely ignores the evidence of dinasaurs living 1M years old when all were < 1 year old.
          12. Carbon 14 dating on dinasaur bones puts numerous dinasaurs theoretically extinct 100M+ years ago … at roughly 20,000 years old. Younger than evolutionists are willing to accept and older than creationists. C14 dating is subjective. But tracks of dinasaurs and man at same "layers" in Texas justifies thousands of years, and not millions I could go on and on about the science, but leave it at this, it takes great faith to believe in evolution and Big Bang. It also takes faith to be a Christian. Do not try to argue science with them as I have tried and eventually it gets down to the rubber/glue argument. Just remember that a belief that we are all accidents following
          billions of years of random mutations means that people are purposeless, meaningless, and ruleless. Those beautiful
          children you have, according to evolutionists who have considered the consequences of their faith, are mere mutations and could just as well have become slugs or pine trees or crab grass. Their life and death is meaningless. So before taking one of these guys on, think about how you would feel if you believed that everything about you meant absolutely nothing. We are children of the King of Kings … so feel sympathy for their plight … but do not let it shake your faith in God
          for a faith in the only gov't sponsored religion.

          • I absolutely love this message!! Very well put. Atheism is a choice where one hopes there are no consequences.

  4. I have never seen a DIMLIB give a dime to anyone other than a crazy politician.

    Insane Hussein; Nonsense Pelousy; Hairless Reid are at the top!

    I have not supported a nonprofit in years and never shall!

  5. Liberals are as phony as their leader, the Blamer-In-Chief. They are great giving away other people’s money but when it comes to them being personally charitable, not so much.

    • They are selfish scoundrels. They make millions of dollars and none of them give as much to charity as my wife does and I can assure she is not worth a pittance of what they are.



  8. PEOPLE of America. Biden Is Planning To Crash The RNC Convention To Have The RNC Convention Shut Down If This Happen A Civil War Could Break Out To Crown Obama The Dictator Of The Communist Democrat Party & Banned All Elections In America. May God Help The Good People Of America. God Help Us All Against Foreign & Domestic Enemies N America To Prevent A Civil War In The People Republic Of America

  9. I give more than average to charitable organizations since retiring at the end of 2000, but stopped itemizing when my house was paid off. The bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. Nothing shows the love of it as so much keeping track.
    Obviously few of those posting on this site have read Matthew 6.

    • I know you gave more than Biden, Rahm Emanuel, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordon. Those are some cheap scoundrels that all make millions of dollars a year.

  10. Look, I’m as dubious of self-proclaimed “caring” Democrats as the next guy, but let’s not stoop to the level they routinely do when they caricature Republicans and — at least in my personal case — use a little of that Christian humility to try to see their side of the issue, shall we?

    First, let me say that it is more, I believe, than “tithing” that makes the difference with Republicans. Various philanthropy organizations have done studies over the years demonstrating that Republicans and/or Conservatives (depending on the distinctions made by the individual studies) give a larger portion of their income to charities of ALL kinds, not just their own church. This includes “medical research” organizations like the American Cancer Society; services for the poor such as food banks/kitchens, Goodwill, and the Salvation Army; child services such as Boy’s & Girl’s Town and orphanages, centers supporting pregnant teens to carry their babies to adoption, crisis aid groups such as the Red Cross, etc.

    Having said that, I don’t think that Democrats, Liberals, or Atheists (or however you’d like to differentiate “them”) are necessarily more “Scrooge”-like. I think, rather, that the difference in action comes from their different perspective on “caring”. That is, I think we ALL have a human desire to help others. However, Republicans, Conservatives, and the Religious in general all tend to share the same outlook that caring for our fellow human beings is a responsibility of EACH of us as individuals. We look around and ask “What can I do about this?” and the main answer is through charitable giving funded by their own resources. On the other hand, I think that Democrats, Liberals, and Atheists tend to believe that caring for our fellow human beings is a responsibility of ALL of us as a community. They look around at the same needs as ask, “What can WE do about this?” and the main answer is through government programs funded by taxation.

    One result of this is that the latter group tends to give less to charities because they feel like the locus of care-giving action is the government, not them individually, and when asked for money they think, “but isn’t that what I pay taxes for? that should be tended to with the money I paid to Uncle Sam” The former group, on the other hand, gives more because they feel government is NOT the proper locus of care-giving action, but rather they are as individuals, and when asked for money they think, “Sure, this is one of the things I earn money for.”

    This locus-of-action notion, I think, is supported by the fact that those studies that have also included “time & talent” charity such as donating time serving food at a soup kitchen, making and delivering food baskets on holidays, building Habitat houses, providing room and board to pregnant teens on the street, etc., also show similar differences between the two groups. This shows that it isn’t about the money but about the idea of whether the government subsumes the responsibility of the individual or not.

    So, it is somewhat understandable that the Dem/Lib/Athiest group feels a kind of “I gave at the office” feeling when asked for an individual donation, while the Rep/Con/Religious group feels an annoyance at paying taxes for things they don’t necessarily agree with that simultaneously leaves them less able to donate to things they might heartily endorse. (I have tried to set aside sufficient funds from my business for several years to sponsor a Habitat house, but my tax burden has quite literally stymied me each time.)

    Moreover, this attitude on the Dem/Lib/Athiest’s part causes them to become influenced by the tendency to disappear in the crowd — that tendency that allows a crime to be committed on a crowded street and have each individual think “why doesn’t someone do something?”, and which provides alluring excuses like saying, “well, i don’t make much money, but there are certainly other people who make more that can pay a larger share to make up for me helping less or not at all”. The Rep/Con/Religious person, on the other hand, tends to believe there is NO excuse to not do something no matter what the constraints. This is how you end up with low-income Red-Staters from Mississippi giving a higher percentage of their income than many middle-income Blue-Staters from Massachusetts.

    This is also why you have the supposedly “uncaring” George W. Bush who gave over 4 times the percentage of his income to charity from 2000 – 2008 than did the supposedly “immensely caring” Barak Obama over the same period, despite having earned almost $1.5 Million less than Obama in that period. Obama seemed to feel that his job was more to get everyone else to give more taxes to pay for government “charity” than to give more to charity himself. In fact, just as it has become fashionable for rich Liberals to claim that they “don’t need tax breaks” yet steadfastly refuse to voluntarily pay more to the US Treasury because they pay “what the law requires”, there is similarly the tendency for Dem/Lib/Atheists to take the position that they would give more in taxes to help their fellow human beings if only everyone else was forced to do so as well.

    It comes down to a ME v. WE perspective, that’s all.

  11. This isn’t news at all. For my whole adult life, Democrats and I have both given my money away, but they have given little of their own money.

  12. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a retired CPA who had my own business and became familiar not only with clients finances but also their political affiliation, it has not been my direct experience. Yes, one could argue red states have more church going people and thus the tithe. However, have you not become aware of the huge amounts of $$ (tax-free) going to political affiliations by churches? Second, as a person who moved up to crew chief for Habitat for Humanity in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, the majority of volunteers were the young and the retired both leaned towards progressive ideology. Don’t believe me, go out and volunteer. I’m also involved with Salvation Army volunteers, the Arlington Women’s shelter and many others. Don’t even begin with me when it comes to animal welfare rescues primarily run by women and lets face it the majority of women are Democrats. The closer you work with the poor and less fortunate the more likely you can relate and want laws to help them. I’m not downplaying churches and their roles but there is a real and legitimate problem with the extreme right religious sending tax free contributions to lobbyists.

Leave a Reply