Which is, of course, another way of saying he isn’t generous at all.
He is a true hypocrite. He wants to take lots of your money for his pet liberal causes – you know, spread the wealth around - but donates a pittance himself. Read the link and then see how Obama compares to the eeeeevil Dick Cheney when it comes to giving.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.
Less than 1%. Less than 1%. Can we remember that stat as the Left tries to deify the guy?
Once again, folks, charity is when you give your own money, not when you force others at gunpoint to support your causes.
P.S. Have I ever mentioned how radically pro-abortion he is? How can you be for the little guy when you won’t defend the lives of the littles guys (and girls)?
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: charity, hypocrisy, obama, partial birth abortion, Politics
I read about this yesterday… isn’t that crazy the difference between Obama (donates about 1%) and Cheney (about 75%). Really makes you think about their motives.
Hm… Obama = greedy and selfish, Cheney = generous and kind.
Neil, I think the reason Obama’s campaign has enjoyed the successs it has achieved so far is because, while most people have heard the warning that he is a Marxist, there are too few who understand exactly why being a Marxist isn’t a good thing.
They need to be educated.
I don’t normally go to blogs to promote my posts, but I have written a post that I feel is vitally important to educate those who don’t understand the danger Obama poses to America.
Mark, what about the extreme dangers that McCain/Palin pose for the country?
Not that I agree with your position on Obama. I do not think that you know what being a Marxist entails, otherwise you would not stick this label on Obama.
I cordially agree with you that a lot of people need a better education on things political and religious but I am afraid your looking in the wrong camp. The very fact that support for McCain/Palin is still in the double digits reveals their supporters’ lack of education.
Martin, I’m not sure what it is with the Obama supporters that stop by here but their comments tend to be rather unproductive. Once again we have the “you’re stupid if you vote for McCain” schtick with nothing to back it up (and off topic, as well). I’m sure that will get you high fives at the Daily Kos but standards are different here.
If you have evidence that Obama actually gave more to real charities than his tax records disclose or that my sources were not reliable, please share it. Until then I’ll continue to conclude that he is a hypocrite and has no concept what real charity and generosity means.
Neil
Please tell me you didn’t “go there.” McCain’s record on charity is far worse. Yeah, on the surface it appears he’s giving a large amount of his income.
http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=4437
However, read this article to the bottom and you find this little nugget. “The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991″
What this article fails to mention is that John McCain has net assets of between $20 million and $32 million, making him the seventh wealthiest member of the Senate. (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002519)
Just playin’ both sides of the story. As you say, Neil, the truth hurts for those that don’t want to hear it.
Two problems with that, Mark.
One: McCain doesn’t have a socialist agenda of trying to spread the wealth around. That’s the only point necessary here. The question is personal consistency with one’s worldview and political agenda.
Two: Check out McCain’s career and what he and his wife have done. Much more impressive than Obama the socialist.
[...] Obama is generous — with your money, not his [...]
How much did he Tithe and HOW MUCH DID HE PAY IN TAXES is the real point. He is not saying the Rich should “give” to charity, he is saying they should pay higher taxes, by elimantiting the give away that Bush gave them (as their incomes soared).
False Dichotomy…
Hi DJBA,
I don’t follow the false dichotomy assertion.
Here is what I see as the true dichotomy: Putting in taxes to take someone’s money away at the point of a gun does not qualify as charity or generosity. Obama portrays himself as a champion of the little guy (while fighting any restrictions to save the lives of the littlest guys and girls), but he doesn’t back that up with his own funds.
Charity is when you give your own money. Obama barely does that. I don’t believe tithes are required, but if Obama is giving “joyfully” and what he has decided in his heart to give and that is less than 1%, then that speaks volumes.
@Neil:
My bad. FALSE EQUIVALENCE is a better term. You wrote: “Putting in taxes to take someone’s money away at the point of a gun does not qualify as charity or generosity.”
No gun, its called democracy, recinding tax cuts for teh rich is hardly a gun. Corporationas and Very rich people in thjis country have had their taxs lowered while their incomes soared, the free lunch is over, time for them to pay up.
@Neil:
What’s wrong with “socialism”, or at least a little of it? 700 Billion dollars worth to some of the largest corporations in the US, from your REPUBLICAN President and his appointees…
Actually, paying taxes, whether in a democracy or not, is at the point of a gun. Don’t pay taxes and watch what happens. There may be a couple of in between steps, but taxes are not an option. Best case scenario is that they just take your property to pay them. But at that point you have paid the taxes. Jail is likely if you never pay them.
I’m not saying tax rates should be zero. The Laffer Curve demonstrated that there are optimal tax rates.
To imply that the rich haven’t paid taxes is incorrect. If you think they should have paid more, then make your case, but you can’t just assume that previous tax rates were optimal. Either way, the rich have paid the vast majority of taxes in this country.
Another of Obama’s lies is the tax cut for 95% of the people. You can’t divide by zero, so if your taxes were zero you can’t get a cut.
Re. the 700B – oh, let’s not start that again! I was not a fan of the bail out. But I think the deregulation angle was a big lie – http://www.verumserum.com/?p=3060 . How much did Obama get from Freddie / Fannie, especially relative to others? At best there is plenty of blame to go around. I think the Dems have the most to answer for, but they are getting away with it. I have yet to see any good solutions from Obama on this.
Good that he only gave 1% to good causes. The question is did he give his 10% to God? 1% is okay for offering , if that is the case if not every tub has got to sit on it’s on bottom.
I think that 700 billion was from congress and was supported by Obama.
I also think it was the stupidist thing they have ever done, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Our system needs a little tweaking, and our country needs to return to morality. Without morality any ‘ism you chooose will turn into powerful rulers (politicians) enslaving the serfs. Look at history.
I don’t know how many of you will be rulers, but I think I will end up as a serf.
Just to clarify, we pay taxes at the point of a metaphorical gun. In reality the “gun” is penalites, and prison. There may not be a gun, but let’s dump the idea that taxes are voluntary or a contribution.
Craig, you are exactly right. In fact the IRS is a mild form of terrorism.
Not so mild if you get in their way. I knew a businessman who tried to fight them. He won his case, but the harrassment that followed ultimately drove him into bankruptcy.
By the way, I do pay income taxes, every dollar I owe (not from terror, but from God’s law, see Crown Financial Ministries), but I also give regulary to Christian relief groups.
@Sunday School Teacher”
“I think that 700 billion was from congress and was supported by Obama.”
NT but no cigar, the source of the Bill was YOUR REPUBLICAN President and HIS Appointed and approved by REPUBLICAN Congress.
Typical conservative, want to point out every one else’s faults as you ignore your own…a wise man once said: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.+
DJ
Clearly I have not been paying attention, I thought that the original bill failed to pass, and I missed when Republicans took control of Congress.
However, it is not my REPUBLICAN anything. I and convinced, and advocate to my limited ability, that the only hope for our country is to OUTLAW ALL polictical parties. They were useful when communications were poor, but they are no longer needed. In fact each party seems more concerned about itself than the country.
How much did he Tithe and HOW MUCH DID HE PAY IN TAXES is the real point. He is not saying the Rich should “give” to charity, he is saying they should pay higher taxes, by elimantiting the give away that Bush gave them (as their incomes soared).
False Dichotomy…
A reprint of a story that I stumbled across a few years back.
Income Tax Policy for Idiots (Democrats and Socialists You know who and what you are):
It seemed that 10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill that would be, $10.00, each. The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay (using the progressive structure of the tax code). Using this formula the following payment arrangement was worked out based upon income.
Men 1-4 who made the least amount of money paid nothing.
Man 5 paid $ 1.00
Man 6 paid $ 3.00
Man 7 paid $ 7.00
Man 8 paid $12.00
Man 9 paid $18.00
Man 10 paid $59.00
After several weeks the owner of the restaurant told the men that because they were such good customers he was reducing the bill by $20.00. Their dilemma was how to divide up the, $20.00. If each person got the same amount then the first 4 men would be getting money back but they never paid anything for the dinners. After much discussion and no resolve the owner offered the following suggestion which they all agreed to.
Original Payment-New Payment-$ Amount Saved-% Saved
Men 1-4 paid $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00 0%
Man 5 paid $ 1.00 $ 0.00 $1.00 100%
Man 6 paid $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $1.00 33%
Man 7 paid $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $2.00 28%
Man 8 paid $12.00 $ 9.00 $3.00 25%
Man 9 paid $18.00 $14.00 $4.00 22%
Man 10 paid $59.00 $50.00 $9.00 15%
Once outside the men began to argue about the settlement. Man 5 said he only got, $1.00, while Man 9 received $4 and Man 10 received, $9.00. Men 1-4 were upset because the received nothing. They said that the cut only benefited the rich and the poor got nothing. They were upset so they beat up Man 9 & 10 and left them. The next week they met for lunch as usual except Man 9 & Man 10 did not show up. When the new bill arrived the men discovered that between them they did not have enough money to pay most of the bill.
In this story we see a simplified version of the Federal Income Tax. According to an article in the “New York Times” 80% of the taxes are paid by 20% of the people highest income people. Any time you have a tax cut the people who are carrying the tax burden are going to get the money. The next time you hear of a tax cut and the media tells you that the wealthy are getting all the money, remember they are the ones paying the taxes.
The tenth man moved overseas and took his dining and other business and consumer purchasing there. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Neil, my apologies for the length.
Best,
Joseph
@Joseph:
“The tenth man moved overseas and took his dining and other business and consumer purchasing there. . . . . . . . . . . . .”
And so the tenth man should be able to NOT do business with customers 1-9, and find his employees and customers in his new country….
Joseph, thanks for sharing that. It is a classic and excellent way to portray how the system works and how it will get ruined when 51% of the population thinks it can endlessly tax 49% of the population without consequences.
Hello Neil:
51 & 49? Come on Neil, you know that stat is far from correct.
DBJA, those are just theoretical figures. I didn’t mean it in a precise way. The point is that the Dems and class warfare and appealing to illegal immigrants will bring more and more people to vote for them who want to spread the wealth towards them. Sort of like this lady – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8&eurl=http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/?p=2541&preview=true
DJBA, the current number is about 40% and 60%. 40% pay no taxes. I read an article last week that said under Obama’s plan, we will move to over 50% paying no taxes.
Randy:
Percentage wise, out of that 60 % who pays the most? And is that the same percentage that makes the most? Is the 40% refelctive of people who are at the bottom of the income bracket?
DJBA, no idea any answers to those questions. All I know is that 40% of Americans pay ZERO in taxes. Many of those get a credit, so they actually get a refund. I’ve personally seen tax returns where the individual got back more than 100% of all that was withheld.
Randy, How is that relevent? Are syou saying that Barack Obama wants to give 10% of the population a tax break an increase taxes on the other 50%, my question again is what is the average income of the bottom 50% and the top 50%, and how much will taxes go up for the upper 5% of that 50% and how much will they go up for the lower 45% (if at all)?
[...] he will retire at the $6 Million house he rented. By the way, from 2000 to 2004 the Obama’s dontated less than 1% of their total income. Posted in Society | Leave a [...]