I am going to trust what Kas said is correct regarding the research.  If that is the case, then it does explain a lot.  It makes sense to me, because modern conservatism, at its core, has roots in classic liberalism and the individual elevated.  It also borrows from the tradition of religion, and collective responsibilities.  This contrasts with modern liberalism, which ends up getting elements of Marxism and egalitarianism in it, but also desires that people find their own personal values in life.  End result, assume that what I said is in the ballpark, you will have modern liberals and conservates going at it in forums like this, and the each thinking the other side is completely and utterly daft and stupid, as they keep yelling louder and louder at each other for missing what they see as the obvious.

What you wrote above is a way to look at it, coming from the desired ideals that Liberals and Conservatives have now, which are different.  There is WAY too much to go into here, risking being wrong if it is discussed.  I will say that, so long as the views remained locked and people don't see the other side, there is little hope of reaching common ground, and politics will remain a battlefield of a clash of wills, rather than reaching consensus on anything.

The smaller government is, the less tax money is needed to sustain it. More money goes back into your pocket, the more you can use it to do charitable works.

Can do doesn't mean that people will.  End result can be, changing the current situation will result in those in need being worse off.  Whether that will happen is subject to debate in this thread, and would be useful if someone can show what the change in charitable giving would be, if you were to shrink the size of government and have it do less.

This whole thread is funny.
Where does it say that conservatives respond more to "duty" contributions?

IIRC, conservatives want to abolish things that they pay for in taxes, if they already pay for it themselves.
For example, send kid to private school, I shouldn't be taxed for public schools.
How is that duty?

Also charity laws are broken.
Welfare is money that goes directly to people, for them to use how they need.
Charity is money that gets filtered through a system and ends up being 30% of the original amount, to decide what those people need.

I also highly dispute that conservatives have better morality than liberals. (Looking at Kohlberg's stages of development)
Unless of course most of this "research" relies on the fact that more poor, disadvantaged, demographics are liberal.

If we were to look at organizations and laws that are deemed to be conservative or liberal, I'm sure we'd be looking at a different result. Liberal agenda tends to focus on universal ethical principles, and social contracts than conservative agenda, which seems to be more focused on social order and conformity.

it would seem to me that in the context of this thread, taking the position of not giving all the money to charities would go hand in hand with the position of not shrinking the government(unless otherwise stated).  additionally, i clearly attack the structure of (most) charities and not the concept of them.    im not sure whether to be annoyed or amused at having recieved such a peculiar response...

A rich person once told me, that rich people give because its socially unacceptable not to, as a matter of fact a rich person that does not donate is often shuned by their own peers. I think that is a good social contract as long as it keeps the money flowing. It's one of those few conservative ideal's I actually agree with.

The only problem I have is if government services do shrink, which I think they should, whether or not charitable giving will be enough to supplment our nations needy at a time where that is rather high percentage.

I'm not sure if he is an asshole, but his TV personality is. He could genuinly belive in his charity. And he could be a very caring person. But his TV personality is why he is paid the big bucks, like Rush, Oberman, O'Reilly, Stewart, and Maddow.

This in itself is true, but there is no perfect system due to the human race being imperfect.  I can only do the best I can do while hoping to improve in life while hoping that my good actions along with others will teach and influence others to the same.  Also, govenment is not going to know and understand every problem and its context.  The problems in my community isn't always the same as other communities.  As I get more involved in my community, I will understand the problems around me which will allow me to find a more effective solution.  And then I must use whatever resources available to employ those solutions.  Both human behavior and legal policies can change.  I'd prefer to take moral stands and actions out of conviction and choice instead of having my actions determined by legal obligation.

You're dead on with that reasonsing. One thing I disagree with on the conservative side is the enforcement of a mandatory social contract based on the status quo. If they'd embrace the more Liberal idea of social contracts, which I think is far more representative of the individual liberty that this country is supposed to be based upon...but even then there are some Liberal policies that I take issue with (such as there polcies on free speech accept when that speech is questionable.)