Well Jeff true, true and unrelated. What we believe here in Massachusetts is decent wages and a state government that services those needing help. Charity is the reflection of big donor's guilty conscience knowing they shortchanged their employees. Just read what former employees of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have to say about them. The whole device of charity is to maintain the status quo. There is little evidence it lifts people out of their misery. Some success stories, sure but on the whole it is a drop in the bucket to decent jobs and decent government. It is ironic that strong beliefs in charity sit side by side with the sentiment that even those who receive aid from government then decry others who think they take too much. This is a neo-conservative smoke screen to maintain cheap labor and foster dependency on large institutions. Solutions that work best collectively and called incorrectly socialism(no private industry is affected) poisons working class people to believe that because someone is getting government assistance they must have taken it from them. Nothing is further from the truth. It is a stuck in the mud mentality. Charity was invented as a salve that never heals the wounds completely, just enough to seem politically correct.

One reason Utah and Idaho top the list of charitable places is the number of Mormons in those states. A tenet of the Mormon religion is tithing and it is expected that each household will contribute up to 20% of its income back to the church. You shouldn't leave out facts to help support your argument.

It's simple: liberals are tremendously generous with other people's money. Their own? Get real. Why should they help the less fortunate? That's the government's job, not theirs! Note President Obama loves saying how we are our brothers' keepers, but his half-brother lives in a dangerous, poverty-stricken ghetto, his aunt is in public housing, and his uncle a convicted drunk driver (the latter two also being illegal aliens).

This is old news. Liberals believe that government services take illogical and unscientific judgement (or prejudice) out of public services. Rep. Senator Atkins statement regarding "legitimate rape" only reinforces my belief that giving private charities sole authority on helping people in need would only increase the ranks of the homeless and destitute. I would rather pay more taxes to provide equitable services than leave it to a bunch of ignorant but well meaning people to "help" others.

Jeff now that was a nonsensical piece. You're going to compare two Mormon dominated states where tithing is a religious requirement to two Mass. working class cities. Forget it, it's not even worth commenting on. You need a reality check Jeff.

Of course like all those arguing from the right you never give the full story and engage in false equivalency. One of the main drivers of these figures is that Utah and Idaho have large populations of Mormons who are mandated by the Mormon Church to give 10% of all their earnings to charity -- which is often the Mormon Church. Also, you failed to mention that the states receiving the most "charity" by the U.S Government via federal funding (where our federal taxes here in "liberal" New England wind up) go to these same red states. So it would be nice if you could actually paint a complete picture not one that obfuscates the facts.

It's hard to figure out whether it's better to take the bait and comment on the nonsense tossed at the wall today, or pass it by entirely. Maybe if everybody simply avoids commenting on this stuff, the Globe will get the idea that they need to find a more cogent and viable voice from the right side of the conversation.

As much as I enjoyed this column, it was far more fun to read the comments of the left wing posters, trying to explain away what Jeff says. It made my day. But the numbers do not lie, and reveal that conservatives, by their generosity are far more compassionate than liberals.

Well.... Just look at the Obama's giving vs. Romney & Ryans' - need I say more.

I'd be interested in what counts as "charity" and what doesn't. Church attendance is greater in the conservative states. If I want to counteract the political activism of churches in matters of abortion and birth control, is there a charity for that? When churches promote homophobia, is there a religion I can join to combat it?

Liberals are very generous with money, as long as it is other people's money.

I think religion is the key factor. Obviously Mormon counties will have high charity rates because their religion essentially forces them to contribute at least 10% of their income. Take away that mandated 10% and you're closer to Boston's rate. Most Christian religions encourage if not force their members to give money regularly. Liberal regions are often less religious, and therefore there is less encourage charity. Doesn't absolve liberals in any way, but it's likely the reason behind the difference.

If Jeff compared two Mormon States with two Mass cities (it was actually three), why were those two (three) Mass cities ranked in the lower half of the 300's (Boston 358, Springfield 363, Worcester 364) Seems to be a bit more than two (high level mathematics. To further torpedo your two versus two argument, let me quote the part of Jeff's piece you could not be bothered to read before replying. "The eight states that ranked the highest in charitable giving all voted for John McCain in 2008. The seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama." Yep, liberals are the charitable ones.

And yet you failed to explain why this piece is nonsense. Let me guess, because it includes facts that counter your preconceived stereotypes.

Then how do you explain the other six states at the top of the list (all voted for McCain) or that the seven stingiest all voted for Obama?

conservatives give more blood than liberals, according to this writer from the New York times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

You could write these types of articles all day and they would be kind of meaningless. Those same states watch more pornorgraphy and have a higher divorce rate than the liberal states. They usually have more gun violence. I believe MA has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Good for them, they give more to charity. Now just work on the guns, porn and divorces and MA can focus on giving more money to charity.

Charitable contributions counts money given to religious groups, some of which is mandatory. This study needs to separate religious contributions from other charities. Likely, most people give about the same percentage of their income to charity.

Doesn't this fact merely reflect the primary, pervasive, attitude of liberals; that someone else (the government) should do "something", be responsible? Liberals bemoan lack of jobs for the poor but what businesses do liberals start in impoverished areas? Why don't liberals, so full of "compassion" ever start such businesses? They're smarter than everyone else so what holds them back? Healthcare has to be "universal" because no one should have to figure out how to manage even the MOST fundamental facets of life. Liberal solutions always involve someone else being responsible (government) for handling basic life issues. So why is it a surprise that they are relatively uncharitable? When everything starts from the perspective of the state being responsible for individual concerns, first, how would any such thinking ever look inward for any solution? Liberals don't want to be responsible for themselves much less others. they want the state to be responsible for as much as possible. Consequently, providing charity out of their own resources is a last impulse, never the first.

Of course we can now expect Jacoby to start a new series of columns on conservatives as well. Here is a suggestion for the first column's headline: "Stupid Conservatives" based on "Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study" [ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html ]. Another should be "Conservatives Really Are Spineless, Paranoid Wimps" based on "Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds" [ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds ]. And finally, "Republicans are Lying Hypocrites" based on "Presented With Letters, Ryan Admits Requesting Stimulus Cash" [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/presented-with-letters-ryan-admits-requesting-stimulus-cash/ ] and "GOP STIMULUS HYPOCRISY GETS EVEN MORE EMBARRASSING" [ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022522.php ].

This has been the case for a long time. Liberals never like to give their own money but love to use other people's (especially taxpayers) for their causes. That's why they want big Government and more entitlement.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau: "Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South," Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau, said in a statement. "In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces." Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/divorce-rates-by-state-ne_n_935868.html#s338915&title=Arkansas

OETKB says it well. Jeff, read a book by David Wagner called "What's Love Got To Do With It?" for an excellent history of American charity, rooted in an ethic based on maintaining extreme economic inequality relieved only by self-serving "charity," mainly hectoring (with little actual giving to) the "deserving poor" and supporting the cultural and religious preferences of the donor. For this comment, I will say only: Charity is not justice. Charity empowers the giver; justice empowers the receiver. That is the difference between conservatives and liberals.

I am somewhat surprised that those claiming either liberal or conservative labels for themselves seem also to claim to know the most about the mindsets of the 'other side.' Charitable giving, however, is only one-half of the picture. How do those in need fare in these places? Are there greater numbers of the hungry and homeless in Provo versus Worcester? What services do the charities to which the groups in these cities donate provide?