McCain/Palin give money to charity, Obama/Biden give YOUR money to charity

@Taskr36 (13923)
United States
October 7, 2008 6:35pm CST
So I was curious today about the generosity of candidates after seeing Sarah Palin's tax returns. Not only do her and McCain give more money to charity (27.2% for McCain and 2% for Palin), but apparently, Obama and Biden are a fair bit more stingy (5.7% for Obama and a whopping 0.3% for Biden). Now I'm not one to judge people by what they do or don't give, but didn't Joe Biden say it was patriotic to pay more taxes? Apparently he wants YOU to give away your money, but isn't terribly interested in giving his own. In case you're wondering, that was Biden's BEST year for giving. In 1999 he gave $120, a full 0.05% of his income, to charity. I give more than that, and I'm not on a senator's salary. Before the liberals attack, here are the facts and citations. "The Obamas gave more than $240,000 to charity last year, about 5.7% of their income, their tax return shows. Their charitable giving has risen with their income; in 2000, when the couple made $240,726, they gave $2,350 to charity, about 1% of their income." Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=#more http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=173&p_created=1205532891&p_sid=KHAeiB_i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MiwyJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0wJnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9JnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9dGF4&p_li=&p_topview=1 In 2006, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $129,390 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation was $64,695. This is 19% of his adjusted gross income. In 2007, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $210,933 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation is $105,467. This is 27.2% of his adjusted gross income for the year. http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainfinancial/ Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin released tax records on Friday that showed she and her husband earned $166,080 in 2007 and, in line with the national average, paid income taxes of $24,738. The Palins gave $3,325 in charitable contributions in 2007, money donated to local churches and the Salvation Army, and $4,250 in charity in 2006 given to similar organizations. http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSN0333309720081007 Why is it that the ticket who gives the least money to charity, is the most eager to give YOUR money away? I guess Biden isn't even a patriot by his own definition.
4 people like this
10 responses
@soooobored (1187)
• United States
8 Oct 08
I agree with that, I think it's pretty widely accepted that Republicans donate more money to charitable organizations than Democrats. But... (I'm sure you knew that was coming!) I still think that channeling tax dollars into assistance programs is more appropriate. By assistance programs I mean education, workforce development, housing assistance, healthcare, etc. Relying more on private donations than public bothers me ideologically; the nature of services offered is at the whim of the person making the donation. There's no way to ensure that all services will be funded, there are always sexier causes that gain more public attention; Make a Wish might be funded for the next ten years, where resume writing assistance would be ignored.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
8 Oct 08
"I agree with that, I think it's pretty widely accepted that Republicans donate more money to charitable organizations than Democrats." It's true, but from my online research it doesn't seem widely accepted. Most opponents claim that Republicans only donate to get the tax breaks. How it would be beneficial to the donor to give a dollar and receive 30 cents in tax breaks is beyond me. I understand your concern and respect your stance on the issue. Unfortunately, you have more faith in our congress than I do. I fear that too many tax dollars are given to the non-profits with the most political connections. That could include Greenpeace, ACORN, ACLU, and American Cancer Society, but leave out local soup kitchens who get their labor, food, and space from direct donations and church contributions.
1 person likes this
@teison2 (5924)
• Norway
8 Oct 08
Thankfully there are people in this world that still believe in solidarity, and that we all contribute for theose that are less fortunate. The best way of doing that is by taxes in my mind. To make sure the ones who have the most contibute the most. Great invention. really does not seem like the republican way is the way to go to ensure great national economic health? They are excellet at bringing us all down it seems. damn the republicans. Good luck at getting a better government that makes life better for all people around the world - one that does not put all of us in danger every day.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
8 Oct 08
"They are excellet at bringing us all down it seems. damn the republicans." If Republicans are so good at bringing us all down than why are they the ones giving the most to charity? Tax dollars get given to the non-profits like ACORN who have the most political connections, not the grassroots organizations that can't afford to lobby.
2 people like this
@teison2 (5924)
• Norway
8 Oct 08
Funny way of seeing things. There are different ways of running a society. There are different systems for distributing tax money. The US is great in many ways but I thank whomever for not beeing a US citizen. With the homeless, the poor, people that cannot get medical aid for their ill kids and so on and so on. Not a model society in any ways in my mind. How do you know who gives what to charity? republicans are more than two people? There must be more than two democrats in the US too? Do you base your voting on who gives the most to charity out of four candidates? If you are so conserned about charities and the ones thay help do you not think there are other more important factors to consider than what 4 single people contribute on their own whims?
1 person likes this
@teison2 (5924)
• Norway
8 Oct 08
Documentation? Links? I agree. Noone in their right mind should trust the current US government. Mine I trust. They seem to be doing a good job at distributing our common money. Solidarity now.
• United States
8 Oct 08
wow thats really eye opening.. no matter who you are rooting for!! im surprised at mccains generosity!!
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
8 Oct 08
With the exception of Biden, I'd say all the candidates do appear to be quite generous. I wouldn't fault Obama for giving a lower percentage than McCain, since he is still giving a fair amount. Biden just surprised me because frankly, "I" give more money to charity than he does and I make a fraction of his income.
2 people like this
• United States
8 Oct 08
i would have figured mccain would have given like biden though.. thats why im surprised haha
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
8 Oct 08
The only politician I know of whose giving was comparable to Biden was D!ck Cheney. McCain has always given a lot to charity and his wife runs a non-profit.
2 people like this
@sharra1 (6341)
• Australia
8 Oct 08
Giving to charity is not the best way to deal with poverty. The best way is through Government programs that provide ways out of poverty such as education, affordable housing, work experience. Like all Government programs these require taxation. Charities can only help some and often do not have the skills to help beyond food donations. That helps feed people but it does not help them to improve themselves.
@sharra1 (6341)
• Australia
8 Oct 08
So? Capitalism needs people to be starving in poverty or it fails to work. I see that as wrong. Communism controls everything, also wrong. There should be a balance between the two where we care for people because they are people. There is enough money in the world to care for everyone but most of it is in the hand of a few. I have heard of people in the US who work 2 jobs and still cannot afford to feed their families because the wages are far too low. That is wrong and in Australia it is illegal. We are a capitalist country but we have regulation that protects people from working for starvation wages. It ensures that they have an income if they lose their job, its not much and the rules are tough but they do not starve. The big problem with this world is that it is focused on individual greed rather than caring for the welfare of the community. That is what caused the current economic crisis. I do not care what you call it but it is wrong for a person to be able to work full time and still starve. That is just the greed of the employer and the refusal of the government to care for the welfare of its people.
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6341)
• Australia
8 Oct 08
That is not the case at all. The banks were not forced to make those loans. They did it out of greed trying to find new markets and make more profits. They knew the people would default but as long as the property markets stayed high they would get the house and make a profit selling it but it backfired. It was lack of regulation on people's greed that caused your current economic problems. You cannot trust greedy people to look after anyone. The government is the only one you can trust to care for its people and if it doesn't then you find one that will.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
8 Oct 08
"That is not the case at all. The banks were not forced to make those loans. They did it out of greed trying to find new markets and make more profits." Newsflash Sharra, banks LOSE money on foreclosed homes. That's what's causing the crisis. Do you really think greed made them want to lose money?
1 person likes this
@cripfemme (7713)
• United States
8 Oct 08
.03% does seem really low and that's somewhat embarrassing for a vice presidential candidate. I think I gave more than .03% to charity and I certainly don't make anywhere near what senator Biden does. In truth, I make much less than the average person by far. Maybe the public ridicule from these findings will inspire him to give more. Of course, he might spend his time volunteering rather than giving money which is just as valuable in my opinion if not more so. We don't know because that's not addressed here. Thank you for the information and although I'm still voting for Obama I plan to drop Senator Biden an email and tell him that I don't think it's very good that a vice presidential candidate only gives .03% of his money to non-profits.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
9 Oct 08
If you make $30,000 you would have to give $92.00 to outdo the Biden's in their most genorous year (this year). In their worst year you'd have to give $45 to outdo them. Keep in mind, they are making over $200,000 in their worst year and over $300,000 in their best year. According to the studies I've read the working poor typically give more than that to charity. Poor people on welfare typically give nothing, but that's to be expected. After going through all this I'm tempted to look at my tax returns to see what percentage my wife and I give. We give a lot, but we don't always get receipts so it doesn't all get reported. On average we definitely give more money , not just a bigger percent, than the Bidens, and we aren't earning 6 figures.
@cripfemme (7713)
• United States
9 Oct 08
I'm on benefits, but always give more than $100 dollars a year. I make a donation of $10/month to this organization called Right to Play, which donates sports equipment to the developing world. That's $120 right there and doesn't count Toys for Tots, or donations from my books or anything.
@missybal (4492)
• United States
9 Oct 08
Thanks so much for this, I was recently attacked when I tried to talk about this because I didn't have the time to research every link of information and get the documents to pound it home as it seems you must and can never do well enough for any Obama supporter. They just say where's the proof as if they have an upper hand on you, and if you don't get the information to them quick enough you are a liar. Even more so it's difficult to get the information from a source they will even accept because if the site is not a strong supporter of Obama then you must be a right wing nut. Numbers and statistics show Obama is wrong for this country and that is what I go on. I am really shocked on the Biden charity percent. Really sad isn't it.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
9 Oct 08
I know how you feel about proof and such. Liberals on mylot will cite blogs, DailyKOS, and one liberal constantly cites HIS OWN BLOG. Despite that I feel like all my proof must come from the Huffington Post to be accepted by them. I could link to an article on Fox News claiming the sky is blue and they'll yell that it's just conservative lies because they hate Fox News.
@suspenseful (40314)
• Canada
8 Oct 08
I believe that the church is the best way to donate money and also for the person him or herself to give part of their money to charity. I know some here would rather the government take money away from you in taxes ( "because you are so rich and I am so poor you should be taxed more because I do not want to improve myself and your great grandfather was probably a robber baron, anyway.") and that money might not go to the ones who need it - like in your community. But those liberals or Obama supporters on this post would rather that the government increase the taxes and they say they are more interested in the poor. Well is not giving over ten percent to charity show a good example? That also means that the government will not have to tax you that much. So do these Obama supporters want the people to stop supporting charities by their own efforts and let the government do it all and what if some of the people want their money to go to help, lets say sick and dying children, and yet the government puts the money to help save the whales? So what is more fair?
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
8 Oct 08
I'm with you. I think communities should be able to support their own charities instead of the government taking our money and letting Obama take tax dollars from all over the country to spend on a $3 million overhead projector in his state of Illinois. How exactly is that helping the poor and struggling middle class he claims to be a hero of? I personally haven't been to a planetarium in 13 years and when I did go, it wasn't free.
• United States
8 Oct 08
Don't give nothing to a Charity outside of the US and don't believe everything you READ. Obama has done more to help the common man in his few years than any Republican candidate ever has or will. Don't worry about who raises money, be concerned about where the tax payers dollar is actually going. And pay attention to "which banks" get what with this bailout. Democrats allow the working man to prosper. Cut government jobs and let some of them learn how it feels to curb your spending!
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
8 Oct 08
Are you just making it up as you go along, or did you hear that in a commercial? Seriously, I could throw facts at you just like I have everyone else here, but I'm starting to think people like you are proud of your ignorance and will ignore any and all facts in your eagerness to hate republicans and blame them for all your problems.
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Oct 08
I was really Upset when I heard about those Executives from AIG going to That Spa Retreat after being bailed out by the Government. (So much for Capitalism being a corrupting factor,Earned Money will never corrupt someone as much or as Quickly as free Government money) And while I commend Henry Waxman for bringing this up, I was pretty pissed when he referred to "The Taxpayers" having bailed them out. No Henry, "The Taxpayers" Didn't bail them out. CONGRESS Bailed them out. They just used OUR money to do it. I think they are trying to use those executives as scapegoats to move the focus off of the fact that Democrats have continually blocked that "Deregulation" that Obama Keeps saying is the cause of this (Manufactured) "Crisis". It's been proven that lowering taxes Brings more money into the Revenue. That's just simple economics. Even I understand that so it MUST be simple. So why do Democrats always want to raise taxes? CONTROL
• United States
8 Oct 08
thanks for sharing this info with us! Im voting for McCain/Palin I am looking forward to the tax credit per kid going from $3500 up to $7000 thats courtesy of McCain/Palin. Im a struggling single mom and I give more than Biden and i am a full time student and i work part time while raising my 2 girls.