Are the Poor More Compassionate?

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," December 29, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: So, according to a new study, the poor are more compassionate than the un-poor. Author from Berkeley claims this is due to, quote, "culture" borne out of the threats to their well-being. So the poor are nicer than the rich, says a researcher from Berkeley. That is as predictable as my Sunday hangover.

But I guess by this logic, we should re-elect President Obama because we now have more poor people than ever, and that could only be good because they're good. Anyway, there are holes so wide in this, you could wheel Michael Moore lake house through it.

In fact, the culture of compassion doesn't explain why a lot of crime is poor on poor. My brain tells me muggers don't live in Beverly Hills. Maybe they're dealers, too.

So, why does this junk get published? Because class warfare requires all progressive forces, politicians and media and academics to tell us their utopian society of forced equality is right. I do think class warfare is real, but it's the war that professors wage on students in classes with this crap.

And forget the rich. Professors are the most coddled creeps on Earth. The rich take risks. Professors take tenure. And as someone who was once poor, the notion that the rich were never poor or face obstacles overlooks one fact that the America is the easiest place in the world to move across classes. Seriously, if I can make it, anyone can.


ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Michael Moore's lake house.


BOLLING: Very nice.

GUTFELD: Beautiful house.

Since you're already talking, Eric, OK, imagine --


BOLLING: Is this going to hurt?

GUTFELD: Imagine if the researchers found the opposite result, that the rich were actually more compassionate. Would that have been published?

BOLLING: Yes, no. We won't hear about it.

But your point is very well-taken. Obama must be thrilled with this report. Forty-four million people are on food stamps right now. So, a lot more great people under the Obama administration. He's creating a great sight.

GUTFELD: Leslie, what do you make of this study?

LESLIE MARSHALL, GUEST CO-HOST: I make that we have more -- you're all going to throw up now -- more compassion and less capitalism. Are you OK?

GUTFELD: Why can't they have both though?


MARSHALL: Well, you can, but obviously, you can't -- obviously according to the study from Berkeley, because the poor people don't have the money. They have the compassion. Rich people have money and I think we're going to get --

BOLLING: Greg, aren't people from Berkeley really rich?

GUTFELD: Yes, they are excruciatingly wealthy. But here's the fact, America's number one in the world to charity. And we're not all poor people. And the people who give money, I'm guessing a lot of them are rich.

MARSHALL: Compassion doesn't always have --

GUTFELD: But you just said there should be more compassion and less -- you are confusing me! You said less capitalism, more compassion. Now, you're saying it's not important.



GUILFOYLE: Can I just tell you where you went wrong with this?


GUILFOYLE: Berkeley.


GUILFOYLE: I mean, why are you giving this study any credibility whatsoever? I agree with you in the intro that this -- it's just ridiculous. This is what they come up with Berkeley because they have so much money and so much time.

GUTFELD: Look, I did the story because it practically writes itself.

GUILFOYLE: That's true.

GUTFELD: Andrea, what do you make of this? Is this just another quail in the class warfare archery set?

ANDREA TANTAROS, CO-HOST: Ooh, I don't like these of quails for archery set because I feel like we are taking the bait. Every time that the left -- sorry, Leslie -- but the left gets the right to sit around and talk about who is better, rich people or poor people. The left jumps up and down and they win.

TANTAROS: This is a false debate.


GUILFOYLE: Ridiculous.

TANTAROS: This is ridiculous qualitative judgment. I mean, there's no quantitative of this study at all.

MARSHALL: I think it's actually -- honestly, I think it's common sense. Poor people identify with people who are poor, down and out because they are poor, they have been poor. Rich people have not.

TANTAROS: That is the biggest line I've ever heard. You look at someone like my dad who was homeless and super poor, he was one of the most compassionate man, because he was poor-poor.

MARSHALL: Right. Right.

BOLLING: Can I throw in partisan politics in this?

GUTFELD: Sure. Absolutely.

BOLLING: Gallup poll, I believe the study is 2009, but that's the latest study. The very liberal people, 1.2 percent of their income. The liberals 1.5 percent. The moderates around 3 percent.

You go to the right -- conservatives, 3.6 percent. And very conservatives 4.5 percent.

So, if you take conservatives on the right, liberals on the left, conservatives give 300 percent more, as percentage of their income than the liberals.

MARSHALL: Because they have more money. We liberals like to get on a plane and go to Haiti. Not to send the check through the mail.

BOLLING: It's not how much money you make. It's percentage of your income. So, it's your "givability." Conservatives give way more than liberals.

MARSHALL: Financially, absolutely. But what about time? What is there to give?

GUTFELD: I don't want to give my time because that would make their life worse. That's the whole point of money. They could money.

But if I try to volunteer somewhere --


GUTFELD: I could hurt. I mean, somebody would die if I went to --

GUILFOYLE: It would be the opposite of helpful.

TANTAROS: And I was just going to say real quick, and let's not forget -- the rich are already pay the majority in taxes that go to fund these welfare programs. A lot of them are pretty compassionate and take care of the poor of this country already.

GUTFELD: All right. I want to move quickly to this. Local activists and ministers are calling on Nike and Michael Jordan to change the way they sell those shoes that everybody went crazy for. They were highly sought Air Jordan, whatever, I don't know anymore.

But here's some of the activists talking about how they should have more responsibility with their product.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is the responsibility of Michael Jordan and Nike to stand up and be part of the solution. Right now, it's public safety issue with children wearing those sneakers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The people that can least afford these shoes are buying these shoes. And what happens at a result of that? Well, there's more crime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trying to make it logical. We're saying that all of us collectively to take responsibility for making a change.


GUTFELD: Does that make any sense at all?

GUTFELD: I don't know --


GUTFELD: Nike, maybe they should make their shoes less attractive?


BOLLING: Because they are desirable and people want them, they are dangerous. How about crack? How about methamphetamine? How about, you know, all the litany of drugs that could kill someone?

It's a sneaker. They like the sneakers. Kids like music.

GUILFOYLE: People like iPods and iPads and anything made by Apple. Right?

TANTAROS: How dare they, Nike, create a product that is number one?

GUILFOYLE: Outrage segment.

TANTAROS: How dare Michael Jordan actually put his name on something people want to buy?

GUTFELD: But, you know, the argument in this was that the minister said the shoe was unaffordable to the people that were trying to buy it. Then you saw the violence there.

So what did the poor compassion argument come in?

MARSHALL: This isn't just about Air Jordans. I mean, in Los Angeles, on Black Friday, a woman pepper-sprayed over 20 people to get electronics and she is still at large.

And so, this is, this to me comes from the parents and comes from the home. I know it's creepy when I sound like a conservative, you guys. But seriously, this comes from parenting.

If Michael Jordan can get up there and say stop this violence, you know? When I lived in Chicago and people were shooting their guns in the air when the Bulls won their victories and he did and Dennis Rodman and others got on television and said stop the violence. They didn't stop.

This is about teaching kids that -- well, first, you shouldn't buy your kids $200 sneakers. Not in a good economy.

TANTAROS: They shouldn't be rioting.


GUILFOYLE: Personal responsibility, there's no reason. I mean, I don't understand the entitlement to Air Jordans. Everybody thinks they should have them. Even that Kim Jong Un who loves them.

I mean, give me a break. Send him some. A whole, like a big case of them.

TANTAROS: The point is what happened to compassionate poor people? These people can't afford the sneakers and they're beating up. If I don't have money, I wasn't compassionate. I was ticked off.

GUTFELD: Yes, same here. When I was squatting in that house -- well, I won't get in that story. Squatting and living for free.

Content and Programming Copyright 2011 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.