Palin gave more to charity in last 2 years than Biden in the last 8 combined!

[Christians4LessGvt]

Palin gives more to charity than Biden 

By Sam Youngman 
Oct 3, 2008
 
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made considerably less money than rival Sen. Joe Biden, but the Palin family gave
more to charity in the last two years than Biden has in the last eight combined, according to Palin's tax
records released Friday afternoon.

Palin, the running mate of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and her husband Todd
reported meager earnings from 2006 and 2007, at least by presidential-politics standards.

In 2006, the Palins paid $11,944 in taxes on $127,869 in income. In 2007, they paid $24,738 on
$166,080.

But in 2006, they donated $4,880 to charity, and in 2007, they donated $3,325.

By contrast, Biden (D-Del.), Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate, has
donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis
posted by National Review.

The timing of the release of the Palins tax records has become something of a tradition. Campaigns wait
until Friday afternoon, when the news cycle slows to a grind and reporters are focused elsewhere ? in
this case, Congress's passage and the president's signing of the financial rescue package.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/palin-gives-more-to-charity-than-biden-despite-less-income-2008-10-03.html
 

[Michael Tee]

Another Republican hatchet job, devoid of all but a few meaningful facts and completely irrelevant in any case.  What I'd like to see, if charitable contributions are the criteria by which your leaders are selected, is a list for the most current ten years or five years if ten aren't available, covering the donations of ALL FOUR candidates and the incomes of all four (spouses included or excluded across the board - - if you count Todd, count Cindy and Michelle, but don't count some and not others.)

Wow, THAT would be hilarious.  Compare the gross donations of McCain and Sarah (with or without spouses) with the gross donations of Barak and Joe (with or without Michelle.)  Show it in the context of their respective incomes, and for good measure, as a percentage of their respective incomes.

There's no lack of resources or intellect at National Review.  This would be an easy project for them to wrap up.  But they haven't done it yet.  Hmmm, wonder why?

[Plane]

Why should Biden waste time giving his own money around to worthy causes when he is able to give those causes much more of our money?

[BT]

Another Republican hatchet job, devoid of all but a few meaningful facts and completely irrelevant in any case.

This from the guy who coined the word BIMBRON

[Christians4LessGvt]

exactly plane! they act all high & mighty with other people's money! but look what they do with their own!

remember this.....CNN must have been incohoots with the National Review on this one!



Gores' Charitable Giving Raises Some Eyebrows
 
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 15) -- In a 34-page 1997 federal tax return, Vice President Al Gore and wife Tipper reported giving $353 to charity, an amount much lower than donations the family has made in previous tax cycles.

That figure is less than one-tenth the typical contribution amount for someone with the Gores' adjusted gross income of $197,729. That fact has caused some bewilderment in philanthropic circles because of the vice president's "good guy" image as an advocate for public service and social causes, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

"I would assume that he would want to do something to demonstrate that he was being socially responsible through his giving ... " Stacy Palmer, managing editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, told the Times.

The vice president's office responded by urging that the Gores be judged by their history of giving, not just the dollar figure from one year's tax return. Aides also said some donations could not be claimed on the form, including church contributions and Mrs. Gore's donations of food and clothing to the homeless.

"Contributing financially to charitable organizations is certainly noble and should be encouraged and is something that the Gores have done when the resources were there," said Chris Lehane, a spokesman for the vice president. "However, to truly judge a person's commitment to helping others, you need to consider what they have done with their lives and how they have spent their time -- and by that standard the Gores are extraordinarily committed."

The giving pattern of the Gores has been erratic over the years. Last year they gave $35,530, most of which came from the proceeds of Mrs. Gore's book, "Picture This."

In 1992, aided by the royalties of Gore's book, "Earth In The Balance," the couple donated $52,558. Most of that -- $50,000 -- went to the University of Tennessee to endow a chair in memory of Gore's late sister.

During the years in between the Gores did not itemize their tax returns, and therefore no charitable donation statistics are available for that period.

But this year's $353 ranks very low by national standards. The Times reported that a survey by the pro-philanthropy Independent Sector shows the average American household gave $696 to charity in 1996.

IRS figures rank the Gores' 1997 level far below the average for households in their income bracket. Among households reporting income of $100,000 to $200,000 in 1995, the last year for which information is available, charitable contributions averaged $3,377.

But experts point out that a single household's donations vary greatly from year to year. And Gore's defenders also argue that despite the vice president's salary, he has two daughters enrolled at Harvard University and a son in a private secondary school.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/15/gore.taxes/

[Michael Tee]

<<This from the guy who coined the word BIMBRON>>

Better learn the difference between an epigram and a hatchet job.

[BT]

Better learn the difference between an epigram and a hatchet job.

This from the hatchet job guy who accused the Obama bracelet lady's  ex of beating her to a bloody pulp. Based on nothing but a desire to discredit.

 

[Michael Tee]

<<This from the hatchet job guy who accused the Obama bracelet lady's  ex of beating her to a bloody pulp.>>

Uh, not exactly.  I speculated that the guy abused her, which was about the only logical reason I could see for an ex-husband acting as his ex-wife's spokesman, without contradiction from the ex-wife, regarding a personal matter between the ex and Obama.  As it turned out, the ex-wife DID repudiate what the bastard said, thereby rendering my abuse theory moot.

<< Based on nothing but a desire to discredit.>>

I think your fabrication of my position, which I just exposed, is a much more valid example of a lie based on nothing but a desire to discredit.  Good thing my opinion of right-wing ethics is already at rock bottom, otherwise this latest little comic escapade of yours would surely have put it there.

[BT]

As it turned out, the ex-wife DID repudiate what the bastard said, thereby rendering my abuse theory moot.

As it turned out, the ex-wife did verify that she had aked Obama not to use her sones name in speeches and debates.

She just didn't want to make a big deal of it when the AP came calling.

So once again your version doesn't stanmd the light of day.

And you did more than speculate about the ex. You laid out your case with as much certainly as you could muster with out direct knowledge of the situation, it being the only logical conclusion you could come up.  Sounds like an accusation to me.

Of course, when it turned out to be false, you were quick with the minimization.

[Michael Tee]

<<As it turned out, the ex-wife did verify that she had aked Obama not to use her sones name in speeches and debates.>>

That's a half-truth.  She HAD asked him that before McCain put him on the spot by playing his own dead aggressor first but said she did NOT object to Obama's raising it after McCain played the dead aggressor card first.

<<She just didn't want to make a big deal of it when the AP came calling.>>

And that's a lie.  She said it was NOT a big deal that Obama played the dead aggressor card after McCain played it first.

<<So once again your version doesn't stanmd the light of day.>>

My version IS the light of day.

<<And you did more than speculate about the ex. You laid out your case with as much certainly as you could muster with out direct knowledge of the situation, it being the only logical conclusion you could come up.  Sounds like an accusation to me.>>

I said it was a speculation and used words to indicate as much.  What more do you want, remedial English lessons?

<<Of course, when it turned out to be false, you were quick with the minimization. >>

I actually said the same thing before the wife surfaced to repudiate her ass-hole ex's fascist propaganda as I did after.  Given the prevalent racism, domestic violence and lying fascist propaganda everywhere in your country, my speculation was eminently reasonable in the circumstances.   I minimized nothing, but I suppose any attempt I make to prevent you from twisting my words beyond recognition will qualify as "minimization."

[BT]

That's a half-truth. 

No half truth at all. She asked him not to use her sons name.

She admitted that to AP.

When Obama ignored her wishes she forgave him.

[Michael Tee]

<<When Obama ignored her wishes she forgave him. >>

Both of them realized that the original promise was not unconditional and that neither party intended it to be unconditional.  When conditions did change, Barak felt there was little point in adhering to a promise which had failed to take the change into account and as it happened, the mother felt the same way too.  As Barak probably figured she would.  I think the promise originally was more in the spirit of Obama would not USE the dead guy's name first as a political gimmick the way McCain ultimately did, but both Obama and the mother felt that once McCain had become so crass and sleazy as to play that card, that Obama should not be disadvantaged by being falsely depicted as "not caring" due to McCain's shabby tactics.

There is a big difference between ignoring someone's wishes, and anticipating (correctly, as it turned out) that those wishes had changed when McCain played the dead aggressor card himself.


<<No half truth at all. She asked him not to use her sons name. >>

The half-truth (God, I can't believe I actually have to spell this out for anyone) is that AFTER she asked him not to use her son's name, she changed her mind and felt it would be OK to do so in the light of McCain's crass flaunting of the name of another dead aggressor.  It's a half-truth to tell of the original wish and conceal that the wish was later extinguished in the course of events.

[BT]

Both of them realized that the original promise was not unconditional and that neither party intended it to be unconditional.

Nonsense. That's like saying no doesn't mean no.

[Michael Tee]

<<Nonsense. That's like saying no doesn't mean no. >>

It's just the commonsense recognition of the fact that some no's become yesses, as for example the House's repudiation of the bailout, followed by their adoption of it.

You're way too rigid in your thinking, BT.  At some point, you've got to allow a little common sense and practicality to creep in there.

[BT]

You're way too rigid in your thinking, BT.

Right, thi s from the amnesty international guy who thinks Stalins purges were completely justified.