Obamas Donated Less Than 1% of Their 2000-2004 Income

[Xavier_Onassis]

Then why is this a big deal?

=======================
It's a big deal for the Untied Christian because he dislikes Obama and all Democrats, and he never passes up an opportunity to dump on one, or several.

For everyone else...it's just campaign blather, sound and fury, signifying nada.

[R.R.]

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "big deal." But it does show that the Obamas are pretty stingy. They are liberals and want to be charitable with other people's money. Obama has called for huge tax increases, including a 20 to 25% increase in the capital gains rate to pay for liberal social programs. Obama is charitable with other people's money, not his own. The Obamas have made millions. They can set a better example than this.

[sirs]

It's a big deal for the Untied Christian because he dislikes Obama and all Democrats, and he never passes up an opportunity to dump on one, or several.

Not like a certain someone who "dislikes" Bush & Cheney, and all Republicans, dumping on them at every opportunity, with some of the most vile adjectives he can thnk up now, right?     

Ahhh, that fine art of projection, yet again

[fatman]

Not like a certain someone who "dislikes" Bush & Cheney, and all Republicans, dumping on them at every opportunity, with some of the most vile adjectives he can thnk up now, right?

     

Truthfully though sirs, this isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue.  If it came out tomorrow that McCain gave 0.05% of his income to charity, I could honestly care less.  To judge someone's generosity by financial contributions to charity is a myopic view of the situation.  There are other ways to give to charity than by just cash.  Volunteering, items, and undocumented contributions for example.  Personally, I don't write off my contributions, I tend to find it morally disingenuous to give money and then write it off of my taxes.  I'm not faulting anyone else who does so, to each their own, but this thing is a tempest in a teapot, because all you're seeing is the contributions listed on his tax return.  I'd rather give because I want to give, or believe in that cause, than give because it makes me appear more generous or because it makes a nice write off.

A side story real quick, if you'll allow.  As you probably know, I live in a small town (7K) in a rural area.  There is one family that is extremely wealthy, they own several businesses in logging, waste management, a machine shop, and now they're investing heavily into composite molding and biofuel.  They also give a ridiculous amount of money to local charity, the only reason that I know that is because I served on the boards of a couple.  When they gift the money, it is gifted anonymously, with a non-disclosure agreement.  As far as I know, they don't claim it on their taxes (why would they do so when they require the charities to keep the source a secret?), which may not be financially wise, but tells me something about their own character.

To pretend that someone, even a Presidential candidate, only gives what is listed on their tax return, is rather foolish.

[sirs]

Not like a certain someone who "dislikes" Bush & Cheney, and all Republicans, dumping on them at every opportunity, with some of the most vile adjectives he can thnk up now, right?

     

Truthfully though sirs, this isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue.  

Oh I agree......mostly.  It just tends to reinforce a certain sterotype, on how great Democrats are at spending other people's money for "social causes and injustice".  That's all

[Christians4LessGvt]

Then why is this a big deal?

BT I never said it was a "big deal".
It's one piece of a puzzle.
Of course the only way to defend the stingy-ness
is to say "well they may give alot to charity off the record".
Well President Bush may also give alot "off the record" and
on the record. I think our leaders should set an example
of being charitable both on and off the record because
it sends a great positive message and example to millions
of Americans.

[BT]

This is what i think.

I think this is juvenile gotcha gaming.

Oh sure i guess it points out the hypocrisy of liberals who are all for helping the downtrodden.

But is it really hypocritical? Liberals want the government to handle social services. Last i looked Obama paid taxes, which go to the government, which they can if desired spend on social services.

Seems he is being consistent.

On the other hand, Republicans and conservatives think the money they earned is better left in their own hands. That they will contribute to charities that they deem worthy without the giovt being the middle man.

Using that logic, one would expect charitable deductions to much higher on the right side of the aisle and much less on the left side of the aisle.

The second point i would like to make is this.

Is it not hypocritcal for conservs and republicans who are more individuaistic than the communal liberals and democrats to shame a fellow individual for how they choose to spend THEIR money?

just asking!

[sirs]

This is what i think.  I think this is juvenile gotcha gaming.  Oh sure i guess it points out the hypocrisy of liberals who are all for helping the downtrodden.

This is perhaps, but not the Rev Wright debacle

[Xavier_Onassis]

It all boils down to this:

Should a society guarantee a minimum standard, beneath which none of its members should be allowed to fall by the decision of that society, or should those who fall beneath the minimum standard or are in danger of falling beneath it be rescued at random and buy the whim of compassionate individuals who might or might not be relied upon to do this?

Liberals want our society to have a minimum standard and are willing to pay taxes to pay for it, while conservatives want poverty to remain at the option of the wealthy and privileged.

Having hungry workers standing constantly at the factory gate ensures productivity for the factory and wealth for its owners.

When workers understand that all of society maintains a standard of dececy, they get all uppity, and the megabillionaires are faced with becoming only billionaires.

"I have always depended on the kindness of strangers" was a good line from a Tennesee Williams play, but it should not be our national motto.

[sirs]

It all boils down to this:  Liberals want our society to have a minimum standard and are willing to pay taxes to pay for it, while conservatives want poverty to remain at the option of the wealthy and privileged.

Start with a false premise......no need to read futher

[Xavier_Onassis]

Deny the truth all you wish. It doesn't change its truthful nature.

[sirs]

Naaa, I'll deny the hyperbolic distortion being reported as a so-called truth, instead

[Rich]

>>Obama is charitable with other people's money, not his own.<<

Of course.

Doesn't it always seem to be that way with liberals? Especially the super rich ones? Kerry gives next to nothing (it's not his money anyway), The Clinton give away used underwear and then claim it as a tax write off. No, the left doesn't have much to give when it's their own money.

Apparently Obama isn't interested in doing what is required of all successful Black folks. Give something back. For Obama, he first has to take from the people, THEN give it to the government, who THEN deems who's worthy and who's not.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why don't you tell us what percentage McCain gave to charity?
Did Mitt Romney contribute one cent other than to the Mormon Church?
How about Thompson, Giulani and Huckabee? How about YOU, you bogus assemblage of Christians?

You don't care about charity, you only care about blathering on about "Liberals".
There are no conservatives left. What used to call themselves conservatives are now interested in pissing away money on imperial wars and spying on everyone without motive, permission or knowledge. Juniorbush claims he can viloate any law he does not like by describing what parts he disagrees with in some stupid "signing statement".

Freedom is what this country always about, but you are more interested in  deciding how much people you don't know give to charity.

[Amianthus]

Did Mitt Romney contribute one cent other than to the Mormon Church?

Because I was actually considering voting for him, I checked.

Yes.