It isn’t generosity when you give away the money of others

Most Liberals assume that they are more generous.  They come from Stereotype Land and read the script just like the media and entertainment complexes tell them to.  But studies show that by any measure — giving time, money or even blood donations — conservatives are more generous.  They just don’t lobby Caesar to “give” your money and count it as a good deed on their part.  See Who Really Cares.

And consider how these Liberal heroes want to take your money to “give” to others but can’t manage any real and significant giving themselves.  If Joe Biden, for example, can’t afford to give more than 0.2% over his roughly quarter-million dollar income (that is point-two percent, not two percent — only $369 per year), then how could he possibly afford to pay increased taxes?  Oh yeah, there will be loopholes for him and those who vote for the tax increase bills.

His 0.2% giving and the percentages below are even worse than they look because they are based on Adjusted Gross Income, which is typically much less than gross income.

The Palins gave over 10 times what Biden did, percentage-wise, though that was still just 2% in 2007 and 3.8% in 2006.  They donated much more money than the Bidens with only half the income.

Too bad the media didn’t lead with that story in 2008.

A truly inconvenient truth: Al & Tipper Gore donated $353 of their 1997 income of $197,729, or 0.18%.  That is a fraction of 1%.  I wonder if he’s making real donations now that he’s getting rich off the AGW fraud?

More Liberal Scrooges (read the whole article at the link – it is priceless).

Andrew Cuomo

Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity.

Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his income was a bit less than $300,000.

Barack Obama — wow, a whole percent!  Hope and change, baby.

Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.

John Kerry

Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy.

Ted Kennedy, champion of the poor

Senator Ted Kennedy has clearly relished his role over the years as a liberal Robin Hood. He once told Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, “I come from an advantaged life, and I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to get re-elected to the U.S. Senate by taking food out of the mouths of needy children.” But this should not be confused with Senator Kennedy actually giving much money to needy children.

. . . With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity. The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.

But the poverty pimps give loads, right?  Uh, not exactly:

Jesse Jackson has often claimed that he operates from a “liberal spirit of compassion and love” while conservatives are “heartless and uncaring toward the silent poor.” But according to his publicly-released tax returns, he regularly donates less than 1 percent to charity.

Not surprisingly, while the political ideology of conservatives isn’t driven by redistributing the wealth of others, they are far more generous.  Even FDR was a cheap giver:

This evidence of liberal hypocrisy is damning enough, but what really amazes is how poorly these liberals do in comparison to so-called “heartless conservatives.” President Ronald Reagan, for instance, was often called heartless and callous by liberals. Unlike Roosevelt or JFK, Reagan was not a wealthy man when he became president. He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back on.

And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated more than four times more to charity — both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis — than Senator Ted Kennedy. And he gave more to charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6 percent of his income.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax deduction.

These Liberal leaders preach about generosity but they are hypocrites and fakes.  They want to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B — while taking their commission, of course — and consider it charity on their part.  And they have plenty of confused and/or fake religious folks helping them, including the Methodist leader who thinks the proposed health care bill — which includes taxpayer-funded abortions — is in the spirit of the Good Samaritan.

Save this link to show those who claim that Liberal leaders really care about others.

Hat tip: The Sisyphus Files

18 thoughts on “It isn’t generosity when you give away the money of others

  1. I do not think it is hypocrisy. It is a blurring of two separate words which are COMPASSION and GENEROSITY. President Obama and other Democrats have COMPASSION. They simply lack GENEROSITY. But they are happy to have everyone consider the two words equal in meaning.

    Interestingly, I believe a person who lacks GENEROSITY also lacks the ability to trust private charity. They know how they feel personally about giving and assume others feel the same. That is why the only viable solutions they see involve forced transfer of wealth to the needy. They simply lack the ability to even understand the mindset of a person with a GENEROUS heart.

  2. Also, it is a flaw in thinking. Since charitable donations are “tax deductible”, the charity that is closest to their heart, the federal government, is “getting cheated”. (Thus the backlash toward Cheney for his charity.)

    It really is a sickness to think that government is the answer. These liberals would rather their money go to the government than to the needy.

    Then again most tax cheats are liberals so I have to rethink this…………..

    • Good point about the Feds getting “cheated” when we give! That is probably why they plan to reinstate charitable contribution limits, which make tax planning difficult and reduce incentives to give.

  3. Wow, that is a beautiful title. A less elegant approach I’ve thought of in the past is “The commandment does _not_ say ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself by proxy’ “.

  4. Another thing to consider is the vast amount of benefits these politicians receive that aren’t recorded as income. With all the travel / meals / medical / housing / etc. they get for free they should be able to donate even more than average.

  5. We must not forget the compassion of control. If people can’t run their own lives successfully, then it would be compassionate to run their lives for them. This is an unquatifyiabe-by-a-dollar-amount compassion and requires a massive government with millions of laws and taxes, kind of like what we’ve been getting for the last fifty years, but it forsakes the reality of the spiritual man. If they had only read their Bibles, or even their history books, they would have known that passing laws and redistributing wealth does not a good society make, assuming that was or is their actural goal.

  6. Excellent information, unfortunately not a surprise. I had read a few thing recently I thought I would pass on relative to language. I know what was being said so it is not meant as critical in the least, but LoneStarJeffe said:

    “President Obama and other Democrats have COMPASSION. They simply lack GENEROSITY.”

    Compassion literally means, briefly “to suffer with”. We can rightly say that Jesus embodied compassion as He come to earth to suffer as we do in order to provide a way to salvation we could not obtain on our own. So, with compassion comes the idea of sacrifice and sacrificial giving. I won’t judge anyone’s heart, but based on the data Neil presented I would have to asked quite seriously if it is possible to be truly passionate, to suffer with others, if it never costs you anything.

    It is very important that we preserve language in our post-modern time. Meaning is getting lost one word at a time. Charity is another. We say often we are giving to charity, or are making a charitable contribution. It is really interesting to study the origin of charity and the breadth and depth of it’s meaning and relation to love. I personally was greatly challenged in my thinking, especially as a believer concerning not only how much I give, but why I give.

    Great post and topic Neil, keep it up. Happy New Year!

  7. Great post, Neil!

    This is really typical of socialists, though. When they condemn the “wealthy” they never include themselves. Have you noticed that in every socialist country the people in charge still have all of their money while everyone else has to give theirs up?

    • Thanks, Glenn. I already labeled this as a favorite because I a feeling I’ll be referring to it again. It demonstrates for all time where their hearts were (at least that’s what Jesus said, if one cares about that sort of thing — Matthew 6:21 — and hey, that’s in the Sermon on the Mount, which even Liberal theologians claim to believe!).

      Typically, once they are outed as hypocrites they start to give a little more (a la Gore), but still not much.

      Another thing to keep in mind is that when they donate it is often to political causes, not true charities.

      Yes, the leaders never seem to suffer much, do they?

  8. Pingback: Do leftists practice what they preach about helping others? « Wintery Knight

  9. Pingback: Thoughts and lessons from Scott Brown’s victory « Eternity Matters

  10. Pingback: A stupid thing to say? Yes, but not as stupid as . . . « Eternity Matters

  11. Not only do the individual liberals you mention give very little themselves while advocating (or enacting) forcibly taking money from the rest of us in taxes, but liberals more generally do as well. In his book Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks runs the numbers and finds that those who oppose forced redistribution also give more themselves in private charitable donations.

    Lest any liberals assume that Brooks is just some conservative hack skewing numbers to support his preconceived notions, here’s part of the author’s introduction:

    These are not the sorts of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, ten years ago. I have to admit that I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book. I lived in a world largely characterized by the kind of impressionistic stereotyping offered by President Carter at the beginning of this chapter. Do rich people want tax cuts? I would have told you it’s because they are uncharitable. Europeans care more than Americans about the world’s poor. Socialism is more compassionate than capitalism. And so on. My personal views about “charity” amounted to little more than unquestioned liberal political beliefs.

    when I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals—who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did—would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my view.

    • That should be must reading for anyone who voices opinions in the public square. I see the “conservatives are greedy meme” regularly, especially when I hold my nose and comment at the Huffington Post.

      • I agree, it’s a big problem. More and more, I wonder whether there would be anything left of liberalism if assuming bad intentions of others were subtracted.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s