Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Yes, I've heard of those charities - but they are a small part of the overall donations/deductions. Take out the donations that don't go for those things and the results would be vastly different.
The fact is your analysis is wrong. It would be like my saying those 10 states had more than the average amount of "N"s in them. Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response.
Look at the link to the Kaiser family foundation and you'll see states that are more liberal have better health outcomes while states that are more cons. have worse health outcomes.
correlation does not necessarily imply causation
|
"Take out the donations that don't go for those things and the results would be vastly different. "
Here is what the New York Time shad to say...
"if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."
So according to the NYT, removing donations to churchjes (even if that's appropriate, which I would say it's not), that doesn't make conservatives out to be the heartless penny pinchers you wish they were. Ignoring donations to churches, if you look at donations relative to income, conservatives are still more generous. Look, I'm not saying that all conservatives are generous, many are not. Nor am I saying that liberals are all stingy, many are quite generous. What I am saying, is that's it's insane for liberals to claim they have a monopoly on charity and generosity. There is zero data to support that statement, all the data rejects that statement. And you made that statement in your last post.
Not all church donations go to build lavish facilities for the church members.
"The fact is your analysis is wrong. It would be like my saying those 10 states had more than the average amount of "N"s in them"
No, it would not be the same. Because the fact is, those states have far fewer blacks than the national average. Yet CNBC, and Spence, consider them to be the "best" states to live in. I find that interesting, considering that in additoin to claiming that they have a monopoly on charity, liberals also like to claim that they have a monopoly on caring about blacks. As long as it's from far away, I guess.
"Without knowing the data or criteria that was used in the development of the ranking, you came up with an off the wall response. "
I speculated, to be sure. I specifically said that. But the fact is, all 10 of those states are far more white than the national average. As someone who studies statistical correlations for a living, I can say there's agreat chance that the whiteness of those states is somewhat related to the qualities that make liberals claim they are the "best" states. If not, that would be one hell of a coincidence. Possible, though. I am speculating. But it's a good bet. Just because it doesn't support your agenda, doesn't make my guess less valid.
"states that are more liberal have better health outcomes while states that are more cons. have worse health outcomes"
That may be true, I wouldn't doubt that. But I don't think life expectancy of one's neighbors is the only thing that goes into determining quality of life.
Funny, you criticize me for speculating about the criteria that went into the poll of best states. Yet you are more than comfortable speculating that "health" was all that matters.
How come you can specuate, but I can't? Sorry, what's good for the goose...