Where does YOUR state rank?
Generosity Index
And it is VERY interesting to note that the TOP 25 states are “red.” Why might that be, considering especially that the “blue” states are the wealthiest in the nation?
It is also very interesting to note those states occupying the bottom of the list.
There is a key difference in approaches here, it seems to me. The collectivist mentality justifies taking what is mine and giving it to those seen as needy, never seeming to mind much that the lion’s share of that money never gets to where it is needed and that nobody ever retires poor from the chosen mechanism of redistribution, the government.
The individualist pulls out the wallet and just does what needs to be done. Dirt-poor Mississippi at the top of the list… and New Hampshire at the bottom.
Wow.
No, the method of scoring doesn’t support your conclusion.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| The Generosity Index™ (GI) was conceived in 1997 as a concise way to summarize Massachusetts’ and New England’s greatest problem in philanthropy: that we have the nation’s largest gap between our ranks in income and our ranks in charitable giving. The Generosity Index, with its “catchy” name, publicizes that fact and provides a way to monitor progress against the problem. We arrive at it by ranking each state’s Average Adjusted Gross Income (AAGI) and Average Itemized Charitable Contribution (AICD or AICC), then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single plus or minus number for each state indicating the favorable or unfavorable gap separating the ranks, and then ranking those numbers. Thus: AAGI rank - AICD rank = Gap; Rank of Gap = Generosity Index |
What this means is that voluntary transfer payments are low in some wealthy states relative to places like Arkansas. But it is also the case that nonvoluntary transfer payments in the form of taxes are higher in those weathy states, and those states have historically placed a greater emphasis on service to the needy through governmental institutions rather than private. “Charity” is not a useful concept in this case - what you need to do is look at how well needy populations are being served, and as a former resident of Little Rock I can assure you I’d rather be needy in Boston. The blue states are simply more compassionate than the red.
What the data might show is that when government does not take care of the needy, private sources of help increase in importance, and contributions to them go up - as a result of increased fund raising activity, at least in part, I’d guess, but also because the people who care most about such service see that the state is not doing it. Liberals and lefties like me, e.g.
In any case, your conclusion is simply not justified based on the data. Rather the opposite it true - Republicans for the most part don’t care a whit about the needy, the oppressed, the “disposables” in our society - you know, the equivalent of tax collectors, prostitutes, and lepers in the NT. You argument would serve to continue to rationalize ignoring those in need. “What’s mine” or “what’s yours” doesn’t really matter when a child dies of neglect, does it?
Well my home state (Alabama) is at number 5. (Smiles proudly!) Most everyone I know, even the lower wage earners, participate in some charity program through payroll deductions. I think church organizations play a big role in this as well. Our church runs a “thrift store” where donated items are sold at remarkably cheap prices or free. Proceeds after expenses go to feeding and clothing needy families and other needs. Every year we put on a HUGE Thanksgiving dinner for the needy in the community and again at Chrstmas. We also buy a couple of tractor trailer loads of household wares and toys and such. These are distributed as Christmas gifts at the Christmas dinner. Our church is small. About 150 members. Imagine what we could do if we were a large church of 1000+!
I look at it like this, I got food to eat, a roof over my head, good health…everything else is gravy. It’s my duty to share what I have with the less fortunate. Whether it’s money or time or whatever. If you’ve been blessed…bless someone else!
TG
Well, at least we now have a black and white method to judge who is better than another. Ohio has always claimed to be better than Michigan, now this just proves the point. 
Seriously, I think TomS has something. It is pretty wel known that the taxes the blue states pay go to benefit the red states. Having said that, I think there is evidence that what the red states don’t pay in tax to support social programs they are paying in direct charitable contributions. Plus, the red states lean more Bible-beltish demographically. Are we considering contributions to churches in this index. (I think yes.) This skews things too in one’s potential interpretation. Was the money given for charitable reasons to feed the hungry or to pay for the new stage lighting at the church? There are a lot of things that can be written off as charitable that only help those who already have. The new commuity pool in the suburbs that Daddy Warbucks paid for and writes off is not accessible to the poor who usually live in the city out side of the suburb. All this to say, I am afraid this index is too vague to pull anything from it really.
There is a key difference in approaches here, it seems to me. The collectivist mentality justifies taking what is mine and giving it to those seen as needy, never seeming to mind much that the lion's share of that money never gets to where it is needed and that nobody ever retires poor from the chosen mechanism of redistribution, the government.
The individualist pulls out the wallet and just does what needs to be done. Dirt-poor Mississippi at the top of the list... and New Hampshire at the bottom.
Don't you think this analysis is a bit of a stretch & a broad generalization at best?
1) I'd like to see this broken down by county because there are blue counties in those red states & I'd bet that there's alot of giving in those counties (that's just a guess though). If you found only red counties were the highest givers, then one would need to do other analysis.
2) Like with any statistical representations, this data tends to make "blue" states look greedy when in fact, if you look at the actual data, you see that blue states give alot also. When doing any kind of analysis, I think you really need to look at the data a little more closely.
3) Don't donations to churchs count as itemized charitable contributions? I should know this but I can't remember if I deduct my church contributions on my taxes.
4) NH has always been a Red state until this year & I believe it was barely blue, so I'm not sure what NH at the bottom really means? IMO - NH has traditionally been a "cheap/greedy" state, no income tax, so that's my explanation.
5) I live in a blue state. I give the most to my church & then about $200 to Good Will every year. It costs me a lot to live in these states, and I'd give more if it didn't cost so much. It's true, I make more money living here but my expenses are very high.
The individualist pulls out the wallet and just does what needs to be done. Dirt-poor Mississippi at the top of the list... and New Hampshire at the bottom.
Don't you think this analysis is a bit of a stretch & a broad generalization at best?
1) I'd like to see this broken down by county because there are blue counties in those red states & I'd bet that there's alot of giving in those counties (that's just a guess though). If you found only red counties were the highest givers, then one would need to do other analysis.
2) Like with any statistical representations, this data tends to make "blue" states look greedy when in fact, if you look at the actual data, you see that blue states give alot also. When doing any kind of analysis, I think you really need to look at the data a little more closely.
3) Don't donations to churchs count as itemized charitable contributions? I should know this but I can't remember if I deduct my church contributions on my taxes.
4) NH has always been a Red state until this year & I believe it was barely blue, so I'm not sure what NH at the bottom really means? IMO - NH has traditionally been a "cheap/greedy" state, no income tax, so that's my explanation.
5) I live in a blue state. I give the most to my church & then about $200 to Good Will every year. It costs me a lot to live in these states, and I'd give more if it didn't cost so much. It's true, I make more money living here but my expenses are very high.
These last few months, I observed as my Amish friends 14 year old nephew had his spine crushed by a feed bin. Half a MILLION dollars later, and with no gumment assistance or insurance, that bill is paid off, with nine thousand dollars to spare.
A week ago, an Amish home was blown to smithereens in an LP gas explosion. The pregnant mother and youngest daughter were both nearly killed and may yet not make it. That was a week ago… do you know what was going on at the site of the destruction on Saturday? They were painting the new house.
Just TRY to imagine any of this had it been handled by government or insurance. I see it and participate in it, and it works. I have been on the board of and watched as a similar (but not Amish) community has been established in an extremely poverty-stricken area of upstate New York… watched it blossom and grow, and then watched as the bureaucrats moved in and brought it all to a screeching halt.
Support for my conclusions comes from experience and observation. It also comes from noting where those that are out there DOING something stand on the continuum between liberty and individualism and the gumment dole.
The power base of the liberal left is threatened every time an individuals opens his wallet and heart and takes care of something outside of the “approved channels.” Strong communities are a dire threat to the Collectivist.
Pete, I don’t think this tells you what you are wanting it too. This doesn’t speak to the effectiveness of what you described. If you were to compare giving to charities in comparison to quality of living, or medical dept, or something like that, then maybe you could pull that out. I don’t doubt what you say or disagree. I just don’t think this “index” tells us much really. The only thing I can pull from it is that Mississippi as a state writes off more of their income by percentage than does NH. Where it goes or what effects that has, we can’t tell from this.
As for the “liberal left” (a very yucky label I am surprised to see you use) it depends on who you ask. All my hippee “lefty” friends strive for what you describe. We have community co-ops, clinics, and ingeneral look ot for each other etc. I think what you described is pretty left IMO. (Socialism/communism being the extreme case which sort of spoiled it for everyone. Look at a kibutz. It can work, just not with Stalin in charge or in those types of scales. ) Liberals and democrats are two different things in my book. You are really talking about democratic politicians, not the real lefties out in the world who work for commuinty and togetherness. This doesn’t speak to left vs right, but to the fact that a 2 party system is not a good thing and were there a viable 3rd or 4th choice, things would/could be much different I think.
The power base of the liberal left is threatened every time an individuals opens his wallet and heart and takes care of something outside of the "approved channels." Strong communities are a dire threat to the Collectivist.
That's about the most radical statement I've heard coming out of anyone recently & I couldn't disagree with it more.
Mike
PS - that's a really nice story about your Amish friends but do you seriously think everyone can be like the Amish? I mean that would be nice but we're all materialistic Americans, aren't we?
That's about the most radical statement I've heard coming out of anyone recently & I couldn't disagree with it more.
Mike
PS - that's a really nice story about your Amish friends but do you seriously think everyone can be like the Amish? I mean that would be nice but we're all materialistic Americans, aren't we?
| Quote (Bubbagump @ Nov. 22 2004,11:13) |
| Well, at least we now have a black and white method to judge who is better than another. Ohio has always claimed to be better than Michigan, now this just proves the point. |
Unless, it seems, we're talking football this year. Yeesh.
| Quote (pete @ Nov. 22 2004,11:25) |
| These last few months, I observed as my Amish friends 14 year old nephew had his spine crushed by a feed bin. Half a MILLION dollars later, and with no gumment assistance or insurance, that bill is paid off, with nine thousand dollars to spare. A week ago, an Amish home was blown to smithereens in an LP gas explosion. The pregnant mother and youngest daughter were both nearly killed and may yet not make it. That was a week ago... do you know what was going on at the site of the destruction on Saturday? They were painting the new house. Just TRY to imagine any of this had it been handled by government or insurance. I see it and participate in it, and it works. I have been on the board of and watched as a similar (but not Amish) community has been established in an extremely poverty-stricken area of upstate New York... watched it blossom and grow, and then watched as the bureaucrats moved in and brought it all to a screeching halt. Support for my conclusions comes from experience and observation. It also comes from noting where those that are out there DOING something stand on the continuum between liberty and individualism and the gumment dole. The power base of the liberal left is threatened every time an individuals opens his wallet and heart and takes care of something outside of the "approved channels." Strong communities are a dire threat to the Collectivist. |
Well, that's not true, I bet many of us here are pretty solid contributors. I'm in for thousands annually, by the way. Not threatened by charity at all - but the point is that there are some things that centralized processes do well and some things they don't. Arguments that private charity work better in all cases than do centralized processes are simply wrong.
Ancedotal evidence, in any case, is not worth a whole lot. And the Amish certainly are not represetative of Christians in general.
| Quote (TomS @ Nov. 22 2004,11:37) | ||
Unless, it seems, we're talking football this year. Yeesh.
|
Um, yup, that's the reference I am making. I don't get it, but the football fans here in Columbus are nuts bordering on psychotic.
You are right, Chip… I should stick with the “collectivist” tag, and henceforth shall. I attribute this Freudian slip to my absolute horror at what has come out of the Liberal Left of the media - and what has been ignored by it - this past week. I am clearly talking about collectivists here and shouldn’t confuse the two.
Trouble is, I’m having a harder and harder time separating them. The term “liberal” itself has been usurped by collectivism, and those who occupy positions of perceived or real authority among modern “liberals” all seem to be collectivists. That certainly isn’t true of the entire rank and file Liberals… at least I didn’t think so two weeks ago. Today, I’m not so sure. How many times can you get slapped in the face with something and not finally acknowledge it?
Not to delve too deep in philosophy here but there is no such thing as “selflessness”.
Whether you’re getting tangible reward or recognition or even self-gratification…there is some level of motive for gain. This isnt to imply cynicism about doing good deeds, but frankly anyone who takes more time (religous or not) to draw comparisons about who is more compassionate or charitable for vain reasons than devoting the time to do such deeds is pretty suspect to me.
Thats like me bragging to every person on the planet how I gave a buck to a homeless person and shamelessly plug how wonderful I am. Give me a break…yeesh
I attribute this Freudian slip to my absolute horror at what has come out of the Liberal Left of the media - and what has been ignored by it - this past week.
What's this all about? Seriously, what horror - did I miss something?
I know that Bush got re-elected, I know that the Republican's raised the debt limit, I know that the Republicans changed the ethics rules of the house to protect Delay, I know that the stock market dropped after Greenspan warned us about the road we're on, I know that many innocents have been killed in Fallujah (along w/ many service men) - all those things are horrible to me!!!
But I don't know what you're talking about Pete - could you englighten us?
What's this all about? Seriously, what horror - did I miss something?
I know that Bush got re-elected, I know that the Republican's raised the debt limit, I know that the Republicans changed the ethics rules of the house to protect Delay, I know that the stock market dropped after Greenspan warned us about the road we're on, I know that many innocents have been killed in Fallujah (along w/ many service men) - all those things are horrible to me!!!
But I don't know what you're talking about Pete - could you englighten us?
| Quote (aspiringWanderer @ Nov. 22 2004,12:47) |
| Not to delve too deep in philosophy here but there is no such thing as "selflessness". Whether you're getting tangible reward or recognition or even self-gratification..there is some level of motive for gain. This isnt to imply cynicism about doing good deeds, but frankly anyone who takes more time (religous or not) to draw comparisons about who is more compassionate or charitable for vain reasons than devoting the time to do such deeds is pretty suspect to me. Thats like me bragging to every person on the planet how I gave a buck to a homeless person and shamelessly plug how wonderful I am. Give me a break..yeesh |
Point well taken. I rambled on that diatribe about our church not to get on pedestal and say "Hey! Look at us!" That is not what we are taught. I am merely suggesting that if everybody pulled together to help those in need, we would have a better world to live in. Pete's Amish friend obviously did not have insurance nor did he need it. His community took care of him. It should be that way all the time. Everywhere.
There is a Jehovahs Witness chapter in our town. They needed a meeting place. You know what happened? The group bought a patch of land. Then, in ONE WEEKEND, people came from all over the USA with truckloads of supplies and tools. BANG! Brand spanking new building that serves their needs and the community very nicely. Such a group of people with a common goal and sharing their resources is very powerful indeed.
TG
My view of those stats is very simplistic. Those that are the poorest (at least live in the poorer states) are more likely to give away what little they have. Those that are richer (or live in the richer states) are more likely to keep what they have. Dems tend to be poorer and Repubs richer. The conclusion based on this simplistic view is that Republicans have a pay your own way attitude (less compassion for the needy) and give less in general than Democrats who are more willing to be supportive (more compassion for the needy) even though they have less to give.
Is this a stretch or what?
Seriously, any time I see Mississippi and Alabama up high on the generosity list I know there are many poor folks that can’t afford it giving to those that have even less than they do. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s a financial/social thing. It’s along the lines of tithing. Some folks give all they have - some give just enough to look good to others - some don’t give at all. It’s not the amount.
There was news story about an unnamed homeless name in Seattle. He eats every morning in a soup kitchen for the homeless. Before eating he always drops all the money he has in the help jar. The least thay has seen him give was $0.14 - most $0.85. It was easy to know the amounts since the jar is usually empty otherwise. Regardless of the amount, and regardless of his political beliefs, he’s paying his own way as best he can.
Is this a stretch or what?
Phoo - that's a stretch
Phoo - that's a stretch
| Quote (Bubbagump @ Nov. 22 2004,11:41) | ||||
Um, yup, that's the reference I am making. I don't get it, but the football fans here in Columbus are nuts bordering on psychotic. |
S'ok, in Michigan we're not bordering on psychotic. Nope. Way beyond that...
| Quote (aspiringWanderer @ Nov. 22 2004,12:47) |
| Not to delve too deep in philosophy here but there is no such thing as "selflessness". Whether you're getting tangible reward or recognition or even self-gratification..there is some level of motive for gain. This isnt to imply cynicism about doing good deeds, but frankly anyone who takes more time (religous or not) to draw comparisons about who is more compassionate or charitable for vain reasons than devoting the time to do such deeds is pretty suspect to me. Thats like me bragging to every person on the planet how I gave a buck to a homeless person and shamelessly plug how wonderful I am. Give me a break..yeesh |
Notice that the same argument can be turned around to show that there is no such thing as selfishness.
I think what we need to say on that point is that it is possible that selflesness is never actualized, but we haven't a clue as to how to show that it ever is or isn't - and the same goes for selfishness. So methodological agnosticism is the best course here?