State by state rankings of charitable giving, and which political candidate the state went to:

The Generosity index:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/Generosity1.jpg


For the more detailed graph (which shows the same results) go to the following link: http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

I don't doubt at all there is higher charitable giving rates in the Bible and Belt and in the Mormon West.  The rankings for the poorest states do get skewed upward by the Catalogue's ratings as it measures the disparity between "having" and "giving."  If your annual income is $20,000 and you give $1000 to charity, you could correctly be assessed as more "generous" than a guy woho makes $200,000 a year and gives $1000 to charity, even though that one grand is still just as useful to the recipients.
It is no surprise to me that Mississippians earn far less and give far more than those of my state of Massachusetts.  The very best thing about Christian conservatives is their belief in charity as directed by their faith.  Those of us in the Northeast should take a few cues from the South on this one.
However, it is also signficant to note that these states have the greatest amount of poverty, health problems, and inadaquate schools and other public services.  The conservatives claim that private donations in church are more effective than government programs.  If that were so, wouldn't the states with highest rates of church charity be doing much better?  In a way, those Catalogue for Philanthropy ratings are a great argument against Bush's "faith-based" governing ideology.

These figures don't really tell the whole story. These come from tax returns-not all that is donated is reported. When I ran the local food shelf, I would often get a lot of $5, $10, etc. donations. Sometimes it would be a check, other times, cash. Plus all the food that was donated. There would be several food drives over the course of a year. Do you think that people are going to report that they donated a can or two? There are also those who donate time-that CAN'T be reported on income taxes. For this very small community, there were two extremely generous donations that the food shelf recieved when I was operating it. One was a truckload of food from Feed the Children by an anonymous donator (which was about $5,000), and last year, this guy came in and wrote a check. He gave it to me and I thanked him (thinking the check was probably maybe $100 or so). Then I looked at the check- $1,000.  :o  Of course I thanked him a few hundred times before he left. (I wonder if he was our anonymous donator). In this small community, there are very few people who can afford to donate that much-so they do what little they can with cans of food or $5-$10 when they can.

Like I said, these figures don't tell the whole story.




Cat

Thanks, Cat. 
There's always a lot more to crude figures than meets the eye.

Like I said, these figures don't tell the whole story.







Personally, I thinks it justs irks you that red states probably give more money than blue states.  And Maxwell was quick to jump on your little hypotesis.  I managed to look this group up, and it was confirmed as true, no joke.  Blue states don't like the practice what they preach.

I think charity does not know political bounds.  I know charitable people of both beliefs, just as I know stingy people of both beliefs.

I think it is more of a way of how you are raised.  Myself, I was raised in a very giving environment.  And living in Idaho (the most heavily Mormon state in the nation), that was a strong part of my upbringing (even though I am not Mormon myself).

I saw that after the Teaton Dam failure and Mt. St. Hellens, the Mormon Church get aid and food to the people in need before FEMA could get mobilized.  And while my schools in California gave bake sales for band trips and the like, my schools in Idaho often gave them for charity.

Myself, I still live this way.  One of the things most people who have served in the Military know about is the CFC, the "Combined Federal Campaign".  This is a paycheck allotment system, where servicepeople donate a part of their monthly pay to the charity of their choice.  The normal allotment when I was in was the minimum, either $20 one time, or $3 a month.

I know that on 5 different occasions, I was called in for "unofficial counseling" because of my donations.  This is because my monthly allotment (made to St. Jude's Childrens Hospital, and either the American Cancer Society or the USO) would average from $20-50 a month!  Needless to say, it gets embarassing when a Corporal donates more then the LtCol. who commands the Battalion!  (hehehe)

Myself, I think that you would find the highest donations in the smaller communities.  This is probably because there is more of a feeling of "community", and less isolation.  And of course, these are also the states that tended to vote for Bush this ellection.  And since Bush won over 50% of the popular vote, that means that over 50% of states would be included in the sample.

I think it is more coincidence then anything else myself.  Reagan won 49 states in 1988, so that means that he incorporated both the highest and the lowest states.  I just see this as a curiosity then a fact.

I think it is more of a way of how you are raised.  Myself, I was raised in a very giving environment.  And living in Idaho (the most heavily Mormon state in the nation), that was a strong part of my upbringing (even though I am not Mormon myself).



I always thought it was Utah, no big deal either way.

I think it is more coincidence then anything else myself.

Somehow I doubt it.  I think it does go hand and hand with peoples' religion and morals.  The top 25 states on that list all went for Bush, while the bottom 6 all went for John Kerry.  The number one generous state is Mississippi, and if you only factor in sheer volume of the amount of money donated, then it goes to Wyoming...a state with barely 600,000 people.

Methinks GWB wants the charitable given statistics to irk me more than they do.  He did not respond to the content of my statement other than what I said about crude figures not telling the whole story...and they don't tell the whole story.
I used to think GWB saw things in black and white, no shades of gray.  I was wrong, he sees things in red and blue, no shades of purple!
;D

And Mushroom makes a good point.  Reagan won 49 states in '84, this encompasses the whole spectrum.

Personally, I thinks it justs irks you that red states probably give more money than blue states.  And Maxwell was quick to jump on your little hypotesis.  I managed to look this group up, and it was confirmed as true, no joke.  Blue states don't like the practice what they preach.



It has nothing to do with whether it "irks" me or not. I am saying that statistics don't tell the whole story. BTW, how much did YOU give to charities over the last year?




Cat

It has nothing to do with whether it "irks" me or not. I am saying that statistics don't tell the whole story. BTW, how much did YOU give to charities over the last year?




Cat


Come on Cat, lets not get perrsonal !


I think it does go hand and hand with peoples' religion and morals.

I'm sure it does, to some extent.  Those with the guiltiest consciensous are likely to pray the loudest.  And those poor folks who have been duped into tything to their fundamentalist preachers, like Jim and Tammy "Baye Fakker", Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts.  Who benefits from their charity?

Come on Cat, lets not get perrsonal !

I'm sure it does, to some extent.  Those with the guiltiest consciensous are likely to pray the loudest.  And those poor folks who have been duped into tything to their fundamentalist preachers, like Jim and Tammy "Baye Fakker", Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts.  Who benefits from their charity?

Compared to Falwell, Robertson, Roberts, Graham & Son, Swaggart, and the rest of those clowns, Jim & Tammy were saints...saints with loud tastes maybe, but saints by comparison.
::)

GWB, I'm a real person, not someone's hypothesis.  The state rankings may well remain the same or very similar with perfect data.  Of course, there is no perfect data, so they used the most comprehensive available.  But, the tax data does not take into account those people who, like me, prefer to donate anonymously and do not claim  charitable donations on our taxes. 

For my part, there are three motivating factors dictating my behavior as regards donations. 

1.  I have no desire to be thanked and prefer not to be.  (I take Matthew 6:1-8 to heart.)

2.  I have no desire to benefit, directly -- I know that by contributing to bettering my community (not only or even primarily through charitable donations) I will benefit, plenty, indirectly. 

3.  Most importantly, I do not want my private donations to come at the cost of removing a percentage of my private donations from the tax rolls... and while the previous two factors are ethical concerns that know no political bounds, this last one tends to be a primarily "blue-leaning" consideration.  On the one hand, I don't want to take money away from tax-supported things I don't want cut -- like maintaining the infrastructure and funding education, for example.  On the other hand, every dollar I take off the tax rolls is a dollar that will come from someone else's pockets. 

Bush has seen to it that if I, and others like me, take all of the deductions we're allowed, you won't be asked to make it up through an across-the-board tax increase.  So, while that has been part of my concern, in the past, it is not, now.  If we were operating at budget and trade surplusses, this would be great!  Unfortunately, we are not and thus my present concerns are far more grave.  As it stands, today, 50% or more (and growing) of our outstanding treasury is owned by foreigners and we are  RELYing on more than 1.6 billion dollars a day (and increasing) in foreign capital to make up for our current trade and budget deficits.  So, if I claim my private donations, every dollar it takes off the tax rolls is a dollar's worth of our nation that is no longer ours, free and clear AND it's another dollar's worth of sway our foreign lein-holders and share-holders have over us. 

Some very interesting points MooRocca, some things I hadn't thought of.

Regardless of the reliability of the data, the blue states are already donating plenty to charity at the federal level, by subsidizing the red states.  No wonder the red states have more money to give to charity.

Hasn't anyone else heard of the plan???....

Give to organizations that promote ozone burn off, the ice caps will melt and flood the border states that voted and are blue.... :o

Regardless of the reliability of the data, the blue states are already donating plenty to charity at the federal level, by subsidizing the red states.  No wonder the red states have more money to give to charity.

Right on, Chucky!!!
8)

And Mehli, I enjoyed your post too.  Good points all.

Remember the health index?  The same states that give most to charity (according to the Catalogue for Philanthropy) are also the least healthy states.  Thus, we can see that private church charity, while certainly helpful and praiseworthy, does not cut the mustard!

Regardless of the reliability of the data, the blue states are already donating plenty to charity at the federal level, by subsidizing the red states.  No wonder the red states have more money to give to charity.


We already went through this.  Most of this so-called "welfare" is simply the federal government subsidizing farms.  In case you want to pay six dollars for a loaf of bread, I would think you would support such "welfare."

We already went through this.  Most of this so-called "welfare" is simply the federal government subsidizing farms.  In case you want to pay six dollars for a loaf of bread, I would think you would support such "welfare."

That's right, behind every great free market is a government who cares!
;)

We already went through this.  Most of this so-called "welfare" is simply the federal government subsidizing farms.  In case you want to pay six dollars for a loaf of bread, I would think you would support such "welfare."


If most of that assistance went to family farms, it would be fine with me, but most of it goes to Multinational corps and rich "gentlemen farmers" who don't raise one soy bean or grain of wheat.  Its just another rip off of the poor to benefit the rich.  Class warfare at its best.  Oh, and did you ever hear of "bread riots"?  "Just one more dance", and you will lead the orchestra right?  I'm  really glad that you don't mind subsidizing the rich.

If most of that assistance went to family farms, it would be fine with me, but most of it goes to Multinational corps and rich "gentlemen farmers" who don't raise one soy bean or grain of wheat.  Its just another rip off of the poor to benefit the rich.  Class warfare at its best.  Oh, and did you ever hear of "bread riots"?  "Just one more dance", and you will lead the orchestra right?  I'm  really glad that you don't mind subsidizing the rich.

According to GWB, it's patriotic to subsidize people who grow grains, but un-American to subsidize people who buy bread.
::)