Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
So what? That doesn't mean you get it BACK.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If money is the root of all evil.............
- Thread starter ninerbuff
- Start date
So what? That doesn't mean you get it BACK.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
dust1n
Zindīq
Nope. Just deducted. And I've yet to see how Brook's research (whatever he used) addresses my other issues. 9-10th Penguin main issue remains unresolved as well. Is it possible that this doctor, who presented for Bush Jr. and was accepted into the 'American Enterprise Institute' later the year the book was published, might be using buzzwords to sell books which hardly suggest anything any suggests?
dust1n
Zindīq
Page 21 of Who Really Cares?
"Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]"
dust1n
Zindīq
How can I find a source that discredits a study I do not have access to?
dust1n
Zindīq
I noticed you changed the question from, "Why do not just click the links." Quite simply, because the 4 links provided just circle around one another and do not link to any actually studies, but rather, just take info from the book. I have done a few quick google searches and google scholar searches, and they have provided no peer reviewed studies regarding the topic.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Well, that's not the edit I performed on my post - you and I were apparently posting at the same time and I asked for a link about volunteer time, then went back and reread your post and said to myself "Oh, I missed the source when I read it the first time." So no, I didn't ask you to click on any links. I asked you to PROVIDE sources for your own allegations.
This study and book made headlines all over the place. I have yet to find any thing - any study, any serious criticism - of the study methods or structure, the book, or the assertions of the study.
Have you been able to find anything discrediting the information?
dust1n
Zindīq
Oh, my mistake.
Okay... so where's the study?
Probably because no one can find the study.
I can't any find the study.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Arthur C. Brooks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the early 2000s, Brooks began to look deeper into behavioral economics, often using the General Social Survey. It is this work that launched him into the spotlight. During his time at Syracuse, Brooks continued his academic work on philanthropy and nonprofits, authoring several articles and textbooks.
[edit] Who Really Cares
Brooks's first foray into the limelight was in 2006 with Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.[4] Originating in his research on philanthropy and drawing on survey data, he articulates a charity gap between the 75 percent of Americans who donate to charitable causes and the rest who do not. Brooks argues that there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.
Brooks adopts what he calls a "polemic"[1] tone when offering recommendations, urging that philanthropic giving not be crowded out by government programs and that giving must be cultivated in families and communities. He admits being surprised by his conclusion: "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."[4]
Compassionate conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is the study that Brooks bases most of his opinions on when it comes to sociological trends:
General Social Survey
In the early 2000s, Brooks began to look deeper into behavioral economics, often using the General Social Survey. It is this work that launched him into the spotlight. During his time at Syracuse, Brooks continued his academic work on philanthropy and nonprofits, authoring several articles and textbooks.
[edit] Who Really Cares
Brooks's first foray into the limelight was in 2006 with Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.[4] Originating in his research on philanthropy and drawing on survey data, he articulates a charity gap between the 75 percent of Americans who donate to charitable causes and the rest who do not. Brooks argues that there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.
Brooks adopts what he calls a "polemic"[1] tone when offering recommendations, urging that philanthropic giving not be crowded out by government programs and that giving must be cultivated in families and communities. He admits being surprised by his conclusion: "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."[4]
Compassionate conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is the study that Brooks bases most of his opinions on when it comes to sociological trends:
General Social Survey
A great gift for that special capitalist running dog in your life.....
Money Cologne - The Fragrance of Success
Money Cologne - The Fragrance of Success
ninerbuff
godless wonder
Ahahaha!
Money is not the root of all evil . . .love of money is the root of all evil (1Tim 6:10).
ninerbuff
godless wonder
So do you love your money more if you don't donate excess to the needy? Do you buy what you just need or what you want?
Willingness to do evil is the root of all evil.
To rehash prior posts....priests didn't rape children because of money.
To rehash prior posts....priests didn't rape children because of money.
ninerbuff
godless wonder
I don't disagree here. I'm just saying that if money is considered the root of all evil, then the conservatives that have it shouldn't be unwilling to help make sure it's not hoarded by just the rich.
Who says conservatives believe that money is the root of all evil?
If some do, they certainly don't speak for all. If anything, tis the
lefties in this forum who seem to decry money as evil.
ninerbuff
godless wonder
The term, "money is the root of all evil" comes from the bible. Most conservatives in the US are religious which is why they are against things like abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage, etc.
It sounds like you're over-generalizing about what Bible fanciers believe.