First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Charity starts at home

Jacksonville, FL

#1 Sep 12, 2008
Obama is getting desperate. He’s now trying to malign John McCain because he owns several houses, insinuating that because he’s wealthy he’s too different from and out of touch with the typical American, so he shouldn’t be trusted. This, folks, is typical socialist propaganda. Hate those who have more. Don’t trust those who have more. And it’s pretty ironic coming from a man whose charitable giving as a percent of his income doesn’t come close to McCain’s, as Jay Tea pointed out earlier today.

Well, thanks to their having released their tax returns, we have a pretty good idea.

In the years 2000 through 2007, Barack Obama donated between 0.4% and 6.1% of his net income to charitable causes.

McCain released his 2006 and 2007 tax returns, and in those years he gave 28.6% and 27.3% of his income to charitable causes.

So it seems to me that Obama’s saying that America should be more like John McCain, and less like Barack Obama.

It certainly does.

With Obama’s “hate John McCain because he’s rich” ad, he’s insinuating that owning a number of houses - in realty, the McCains own a variety of investment properties, which accounts for John McCain’s not being able to give precise number - is somehow a character flaw. I couldn’t disagree more. I would argue this is a character flaw: allowing your brother to whither away in a hut in Nairobi, Kenya, while you’re living the good life in America.

Contrast that with John and Cindy McCain who, fifteen years ago, adopted a 5 week old baby girl with a cleft palate from Sister Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. From the Wall Street Journal:

[I]n 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation.“I hope she can stay with us,” she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.

“We were called at midnight by Cindy,” Wes Gullett remembers, and “five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport.” Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me,“I never saw a hospital bill” for her care.

Obama’s attempt to smear McCain as being unfit to be president because he owns a number of investment properties is more of a reflection on Senator Obama and how out of touch he is with the typical American. How so? I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of Americans who own real estate bought it themselves, just like the McCains, instead of with the help of convicted felons like Tony Rezko.

The article http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/...

Sources to confirm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworl...
http://www.rightpundits.com/...
http://www.rdtc.com/Blog/archive/2008/04/25/c...
http://www.observer.com/2008/mccains-tax-retu...
Charity starts at home

Jacksonville, FL

#2 Sep 12, 2008
Why is it liberals always give the least of all groups. Obama couldn't even manage 10% of his income? I mean are you kidding me, he and his wife made over a million dollars last year and could only give 6.1% to charity. I guess they figure they pay enough in taxes they don't need to give to the less fortunate.

“3 words changed my life ”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#3 Sep 12, 2008
because liberal think the government should be the charitable giver..not the people.
Charity starts at home

Jacksonville, FL

#4 Sep 12, 2008
Funny take on this:

Sign posted by Insurance agent.

A tax payer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Even better
My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.------Barrack Obama.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chicken....
Westside conservative

Jacksonville, FL

#5 Sep 13, 2008
I wonder, though, if the move might backfire because the returns show that the Bidens have been amazingly tight-fisted when it comes to their charitable giving. Despite income ranging from $210,432 -$321,379 over the ten-year period, the Bidens have given only $120 -$995 per year to charity, which amounts to 0.06%- 0.31% of their income:

It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity. This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3%- 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007. During the same period, the Obamas' tax returns show that they gave 5.8%- 6.1% of their income to charity.

Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)"

Update: Independent Sector reports that 89% of American households contribute to charity, with an average contribution of $1,620 -- 3.1% of income.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/...

“Translation: Come and Take it”

Since: Feb 08

Los Angeles, CA

#6 Sep 13, 2008
Great thread with real and damning #'s!
I can't wait for the mindless to explain this one. ha ha

Since: Aug 08

Los Angeles, CA

#7 Sep 13, 2008
Westside conservative wrote:
Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)"
Well said. The old adage is true "put your money where your mouth is." Also, how about "talk is cheap."

Many talk about change. That's a great word, but many don't realize by definition it just means different. And different isn't always better. Different could mean better, worse or static. It is no promise of better. Sounds good and looks good in print, though. And it is really catchy as in a slogan.

And I wonder how many spouting off here are truly part of the change they hope to see in this country. Very few, I suspect. Too many people are bystanders in their own life, so I'm confident they won't be effective in changing others' lives. It is the psychological phenomenon you talked about under a different thread. Wait and let someone else do that. Someone else will do that. Someone else is better qualified. Someone else will tell me what to do. Someone else will show me the way. Sometimes you just have to take a stand and start walking. You may not know how you're going to get there, but start walking (metaphorically) and before you know it you just might graduate to a run. And you just might leave that old way of life behind. It has to start with self first. Otherwise, all of the tools and resources will be of no use. Someone has to be willing to pick them up and run with the opportunity. The most effective change comes from within.

“Translation: Come and Take it”

Since: Feb 08

Los Angeles, CA

#8 Sep 13, 2008
Im guessing the elitest leftists will be skipping over this one.

I don't know the exact numbers but i know that American's (citizen's not Govt.) give more in charity then the WHOLE freakin' world combined.

Yeah, we are such bad people and the left keeps harping about our
"tarnished world image".
Please.
My Ethiopian friends oldest memories as a child was seeing the bags of rice being unloaded off a truck from a Christian org. with the American flags on the side. He knew then what kind of country we were.
A great and kind people.
Ex-Vol in FL

Jacksonville, FL

#9 Sep 13, 2008
Well, I would like to point out that I think the Obamas and the Clintons file joint tax returns, whereas the McCains do not. Back when I was a teacher, my charitable contributions would have been between 15 and 20% of MY income, but since we filed jointly, they were a much smaller portion of our HOUSEHOLD income. It was very easy for me to give freely to charity when my husband was paying all the bills.

Since Cindy McCain's income (other than the salary she receives from her brewing company) is not included, I think this is comparing apples and oranges.
kckt98

United States

#10 Sep 13, 2008
Ex-Vol in FL wrote:
Well, I would like to point out that I think the Obamas and the Clintons file joint tax returns, whereas the McCains do not. Back when I was a teacher, my charitable contributions would have been between 15 and 20% of MY income, but since we filed jointly, they were a much smaller portion of our HOUSEHOLD income. It was very easy for me to give freely to charity when my husband was paying all the bills.
Since Cindy McCain's income (other than the salary she receives from her brewing company) is not included, I think this is comparing apples and oranges.
Since Cindy supports an entire charitable foundation that gives medical support all over the world, would you exclude that from her charitable contribution portion of the HOUSEHOLD income?
The Pew study found that conservatives were the biggest charitable givers and also the happiest and most optimistic of the groups they surveyed. They only documented what most of us conservatives already knew.
"Gratitude is riches, complaint is poverty."
Westside conservative

Jacksonville, FL

#11 Sep 13, 2008
Riverside Rob wrote:
Im guessing the elitest leftists will be skipping over this one.
I don't know the exact numbers but i know that American's (citizen's not Govt.) give more in charity then the WHOLE freakin' world combined.
Yeah, we are such bad people and the left keeps harping about our
"tarnished world image".
Please.
My Ethiopian friends oldest memories as a child was seeing the bags of rice being unloaded off a truck from a Christian org. with the American flags on the side. He knew then what kind of country we were.
A great and kind people.
You have nailed it. The American people are the most compassionate in the world. Its part of our character. We showed it after both 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina in raising hundreds of millions for those affected. We have given generously throughout the world even though many local governments have usurped our generosity and repackaged it to benefit themselves. We have been this way for a fundamental reason. Most Americans see it as a civic duty to give and to share from the bounty of our wealth. We have not yet made it the exclusive job of the government to care for those in need. Deep down many Americans have a sense of profound gratitude to be born in the greatest country on earth and desire to give back what they have been blessed with. The government should do it attitude is killing our country as it has most of Europe. Its evident in the giving pattern of many liberals. They believe the government should be the lone arbiter of charity. They would rather the most inefficient organization on the planet take car of the less fortunate. Then they attack those who are conservative as uncaring and ungenerous. Even though study after study shows conservatives give more to charity than liberals. They attack us as being the cold hearted ones.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/200...

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs.$1,227).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news...
Ex-Vol in FL

Jacksonville, FL

#12 Sep 13, 2008
Both of these links site the same source, and the source admits that contributions to churches are included in the mix. OF COURSE conservatives will, therefore, be viewed as more charitable.

Back when I belonged to a church, they sent me an envelope with a statement of how much I owed for my "tithes", based on my income, regardless of what my personal circumstances might be at the time. I thought it was my duty to comply, because they said, "That money actually belongs to the Lord." Then one day I looked at the financial statement of my church. When I saw such things as the pastor's salary, the income taxes on the pastor's salary, the car allowance for the pastor, the travel expenses of the pastor, the health insurance for the pastor, the phone and electric bill for the pastor, the note on the house of the pastor, etc., the first thing I wanted to do was become a pastor, because he was making a killing. Then I looked at the amount of the payment on the "building fund", when the old sanctuary had been quite sufficient, in my opinion. There was a small amount earmarked "missions", whatever that meant.

I much prefer to make my contributions (and I DO contribute, quite generously) directly to organizations where I believe it will do the most good. Of course, this results in my getting lots of phone solicitations for contributions, and I always ask them to send me a copy of their financial statements. If their overhead is too high, I do not contribute.
PJ Parker

Jacksonville, FL

#13 Sep 13, 2008
[QUOTE who="
The article http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/...
Sources to confirm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworl...
http://www.rightpundits.com/...
http://www.rdtc.com/Blog/archive/2008/04/25/c...
http://www.observer.com/2008/mccains-tax-retu... [/QUOTE]
What a sweet and sentimental story! Adopting children from other countries like that. It really does sound like Obama is not too big on charity.
Westside conservative

Jacksonville, FL

#14 Sep 13, 2008
Ex-Vol in FL wrote:
Both of these links site the same source, and the source admits that contributions to churches are included in the mix. OF COURSE conservatives will, therefore, be viewed as more charitable.
Back when I belonged to a church, they sent me an envelope with a statement of how much I owed for my "tithes", based on my income, regardless of what my personal circumstances might be at the time. I thought it was my duty to comply, because they said, "That money actually belongs to the Lord." Then one day I looked at the financial statement of my church. When I saw such things as the pastor's salary, the income taxes on the pastor's salary, the car allowance for the pastor, the travel expenses of the pastor, the health insurance for the pastor, the phone and electric bill for the pastor, the note on the house of the pastor, etc., the first thing I wanted to do was become a pastor, because he was making a killing. Then I looked at the amount of the payment on the "building fund", when the old sanctuary had been quite sufficient, in my opinion. There was a small amount earmarked "missions", whatever that meant.
I much prefer to make my contributions (and I DO contribute, quite generously) directly to organizations where I believe it will do the most good. Of course, this results in my getting lots of phone solicitations for contributions, and I always ask them to send me a copy of their financial statements. If their overhead is too high, I do not contribute.
Read the entire Bloomberg Article

"Some critics charge that this skews Brooks' numbers: Religious people often ``tithe'' to their churches, which is a rather specialized form of charity. Yet Brooks says religious people are far more likely to support secular charities, too.

``It's down the line,'' he says.``Religious people are 21 percent more likely to volunteer in explicitly secular causes. They're even twice as likely to donate blood.''

While adamant about his book's statistical rigor, Brooks also frankly admits that ``Who Really Cares'' is ``a values book.''

``I believe charity is good, for both the giver and the receiver,'' he says.``I want more of it.''

Yet he also knows that he can't encourage charity by mandating attendance at the local church or yoga workshop. What people can do, though, is foster a culture of giving within their own communities and families -- by teaching their own children the value of charity and supporting local concerns that support voluntarism.

And if they want to stop by a house of worship once in a while -- well, that might help, too. "
Ex-Vol in FL

Jacksonville, FL

#15 Sep 13, 2008
Westside conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the entire Bloomberg Article
"Some critics charge that this skews Brooks' numbers: Religious people often ``tithe'' to their churches, which is a rather specialized form of charity. Yet Brooks says religious people are far more likely to support secular charities, too.
``It's down the line,'' he says.``Religious people are 21 percent more likely to volunteer in explicitly secular causes. They're even twice as likely to donate blood.''
While adamant about his book's statistical rigor, Brooks also frankly admits that ``Who Really Cares'' is ``a values book.''
``I believe charity is good, for both the giver and the receiver,'' he says.``I want more of it.''
Yet he also knows that he can't encourage charity by mandating attendance at the local church or yoga workshop. What people can do, though, is foster a culture of giving within their own communities and families -- by teaching their own children the value of charity and supporting local concerns that support voluntarism.
And if they want to stop by a house of worship once in a while -- well, that might help, too. "
I did real the entire article, and I saw that. It all depends upon what one's idea of secular is, I suppose. There are "secular" charities that I would never give a dime to. I was trying to make this point in my earlier post: Not all charities are created equal, and some are outright shams. That is why I like to investigate those to whom I give money and find out what they are actually DOING with that money.
Scooter

Jacksonville, FL

#16 Sep 14, 2008
How about the two starving babies he McCains adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh? One wasn't expected to live, and the other had a severely-cleft palate. The children (dark skinned, by the way) have now grown up and are very thankful.

It's simple to give money away to other people who do the hard work. It's a whole different thing when YOU take the entire ball in your hands and go with it!
Scooter

Jacksonville, FL

#17 Sep 14, 2008
Should have given you this link - one of a whole lot saying jackasses give less than elephants.

http://richiericher.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/...
PJ Parker

Jacksonville, FL

#18 Sep 14, 2008
Scooter wrote:
Should have given you this link - one of a whole lot saying jackasses give less than elephants.
http://richiericher.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/...
Uh huh, tax deductions, they are so important when you have to hide a big chunk of money.

“Translation: Come and Take it”

Since: Feb 08

Los Angeles, CA

#19 Sep 14, 2008
PJ Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh huh, tax deductions, they are so important when you have to hide a big chunk of money.
Nice admitting your Marxist class warfare PJ.
Money is evil.
We should all be equal and the same COMRADE!
I think it says volumes that Biden is so Lousy with his money!
And cheap!
Is Oprah evil because she HAD to give $50 mill away to offset her Billions?
I applaude her.
She walked out of Wright's church 20 years before Obama.
I guess we know who the smart one was.
Maybe you should have picked her as your Candidate?
Black, tough and Female!
PJ Parker

Jacksonville, FL

#20 Sep 14, 2008
Riverside Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice admitting your Marxist class warfare PJ.
Money is evil.
We should all be equal and the same COMRADE!
I think it says volumes that Biden is so Lousy with his money!
And cheap!
Is Oprah evil because she HAD to give $50 mill away to offset her Billions?
I applaude her.
She walked out of Wright's church 20 years before Obama.
I guess we know who the smart one was.
Maybe you should have picked her as your Candidate?
Black, tough and Female!
Nah, the point of the post is that McCain is more charitable than Obama. I'm just saying that charity is a big tax write off

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jacksonville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
One of two kids hit by car at bus stop still in... 11 hr mzz 311 1
Jacksonville's 2011 mayoral election gets two h... (Oct '09) 12 hr David 3
Owner of Cat-Can-Do Marine Arrested on Three Co... (Jan '08) 12 hr David 20
FL August 23 Florida Primary Election: Will you vote? (Aug '10) 17 hr born in 1930 2,484
looking for a tamara jarvis Tue need to speak wit... 1
Anti-Zionist = anti-American ?? Tue noshellswill 3
Debate: Marijuana - Jacksonville, FL (Aug '10) Tue iprazhm 109
•••
•••
•••

Jacksonville Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Jacksonville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Jacksonville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jacksonville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••