'After all the talk about Mitt Romney's taxes last week, the New York Times took
a good look at checkbooks and charitable giving of Romney, Newt Gingrich and
President Obama. There were some interesting comparisons.
Proportionally, President Obama gave the most to charity...' - article It's nice to see this after so much coverage over Romney's tithings. Being Mormon does not mean you are 'better' than a non-mormon.
And non-Mormons are not 'better' than Mormons. Anyone, can be
generous. Anyone, can help those in need. Regardless, of their
I have to applaud Mitt Romney AND President Obama for their charitable giving!
Seeing the actual numbers is inspiring!
I'm surprised Dnews posted this about President Obama.
This is based on Obama's tax return last year. I believe before that, he didn't
give anywhere near that much. But, I congratulate him for what he has given.
'This is based on Obama's tax return last year. I believe before that, he didn't
give anywhere near that much.' - Cats | 1:37 p.m. Jan. 30, 2012 So,
you criticize Obama... for something you 'believe.' I
would be more apt to support you... if you could even, support your
look at scrappy joe biden's 10 year tax returns..... and he wants others to
contribute their fair share. good luck joey.
'look at scrappy joe biden's 10 year tax returns.....' - ute alumni | 1:48 p.m.
Jan. 30, 2012 **Romney failed to disclose income from Swiss Bank
By Kasie Hunt AP Published by DSNews 01/26/12 JACKSONVILLE, Fla.
Mitt and Ann Romney failed to list investment income from a Swiss bank account
on financial disclosure forms filed last year. Other income was missing from the
disclosure documents required of presidential candidates. Doth
protest too much? You haven't even named how MUCH Biden gave,
percentage wise, in the last 10 years. If implication is all you
have... Obama still gave more to charity than any of the Republican
Again, more proof there is less different between both parties than either side
would like to acknowledge. But that doesn't lend very well to the
"my team (and ) am better than you brand of thinking.
The New York Times took a look at checkbooks?It is common knowledge
by polling data that the media in New York especially the Times has a staff that
is anti-religious and atheistic. This is the opposite of average americans.I would recommend that any reader of this article take it with a grain
of salt. Any study that I have read by organizations without bias has
shown that Obama gave less than 1% to charity.
To be precise, the Biden's (Joseph and Dr Jill) donated an AVERAGE of $369 a
year over the past decade. But they "also contribute to their favorite
causes with their time as well as their checkbooks."
The New York Times is not a real news organization.What are
they?.... If you look in the dictionary under organizations being used to
re-elect our socialist leader....the NYT is #1 on the list.
@Pagan,For the record. Obama's charitable contributions
from TaxProf Blog (2000-2006)and others.YEAR % on AGI of2010 14.00 2009 5.852008 6.52007 5.7 4,200K2006
6.1 983K2005 4.7 1,655K2004 1.2 207K2003 1.4
238K2002 0.4 259K2001 0.5 272K2000 1.0 240K It would seem that AFTER he become involved politically (running for
senate in 2005), he had to up the contributions to look good. Mitt has paid at
least 10% all his life. Who is the Pharisee, ie doing it for show?
I got figures from several sources, for some reason the last few
years shared the % but not the AGI.?
The Obamas' 2009 tax return is on the web. Per that return, they donated to
charity $329,100, or 5.98% of his adjusted gross income of $5,505,409.
Credit Obama and Romney for not just talking charity but performing charity.
Newt needs to show more than 2.6% with over 3 mil in income.
Pagan posted:Obama still gave more to charity than any of the Republican
canidates.hummm, in finding info re my last post, there was one
year that Dick Cheney donated 77% to charity. That has got to be an Republican
record. Also noted in my search that Biden is well know for being stingy,
always below .5% a year. Consistency is important and telling. If
Obama upped the rate in preparation of the prospect of going against Mitt. It's
simply for political expediency.
'I got figures from several sources...' - LDSareChristians | 3:30 p.m. Jan. 30,
2012 'If Obama upped the rate in preparation of the prospect of
going against Mitt. It's simply for political expediency.' - LDSareChristians |
3:55 p.m. Jan. 30, 2012 'If' Not 'because'.
If you are going to attempt to discredit Obama for donating when he runs for
political office... why not hold anyone else to that same
standard? Answer? Because to some, no matter WHAT Obama
does, it will never be enough to satisfy some. This story supports
that Obama donated more to chairty than Mitt Romney. And the best
cricitism some have... is sources, they cannot even cite. There is no point to debate the merits of human beings, if they refuse to
acknowledge them. Good day.
I'd like to see Romney's 2009 and earlier tax returns. We know that his tax
rate in 2009 was even less than the 13.9% he paid in 2010. The 2010
return shows a $4.8 million capital loss carryover, which means Romney lost
money on investments in previous years and is now using the losses to offset
gains, according to Joshua Blank, a tax professor at New York University. Romney
did pay some income tax in 2009. But because a good part of his income comes
from a lucrative retirement package from private equity firm Bain Capital taxed
at a 15 percent rate, Romney was likely able to offset his Bain income with
losses from other parts of his investment portfolio. While Romney
pays 15 percent annually on those savings, typical investors drawing from their
401k savings pay taxes at ordinary rates -- whatever they would pay if they
earned it at a job. Romney's income puts him in the top 0.006
percent of Americans, only 8,274 filers reported income above $10 million.
I am pleasantly surprised that since President Obama's returns have started to
become public he HAS started donating to charity. As others have pointed out,
this is a change in habit for him. However, sorry to burst any
bubbles but the to honesty make a comparison like this you have to remember that
a president's salary is a very small portion of his/her actual compensation and
benefits that are paid by the tax payer. Incidentally, many of these benefits
last the rest of His and Mrs. Obama's lives.
@Let's Agree to Disagree"I am pleasantly surprised that since
President Obama's returns have started to become public he HAS started donating
to charity. As others have pointed out, this is a change in habit for him.
"One might notice that his income spiked from 200k/yr in the
early part of the debate to a couple million a year in the latter part of the
decade and THAT is what is the correlation to his giving more... him having the
ability to give more. To adequately compare Obama and Romney you'd need Obama to
be making 20 million a year and you'd need him to be part of a church that
required 10% to be given or else you lack access to certain blessings. Seeing as
the two are in rather dramatically different positions why are we comparing them
@LDS Are Christians"Mitt has paid at least 10% all his life.Who is the Pharisee, ie doing it for show? "You are the
Pharisee. Obama and Romney are doing it quietly. You're the one bragging about
the LDS policy of giving up 10% in tithing.
Proportionally, President Obama gave the most to charity, 14.2 percent of his
$1.7 million income, while Romney donated 13.8 percent of his $21.6 million
income.============= Ouch!That's gonna hurt goiong
into the Final run-up to the election, and look who's the better man?Meanwhile -- Don't expect a single Tea Partying Republican to
believe any of it.They are so engulfed with hatred and denial, they
still think Obama's Birth Certificate is a fake and a hoax!Sad.
Mitt or Obama would be fine with me as the elected president. But what would not
be acceptable would be to continue electing the same represenatives from our
state and every other state in this great country to be the "law
changers" and have their way with our national economy. They are the ones
that propose the law changes and vote that into law, continue to be "bought
off" by big business and are the ones that need to be removed from the
offices they hold. Just vote every incumbent out of office in their next
elections and quit being influenced by the lying, hyping, spinning media
mongrels voters thats what is needed. Think for yourselves don't let the media
Face it, Obama gives because he wants people to now see him as a big giver. He
never would/did give when no one was looking. Romney was reluctant to show his
charitable contributions, but was forced to by politics.
It's nice to see that we Mormons do so well with our tithing! Most people don't
realize that only a few of us are full tithe payers. If every member paid their
tithing, the church would be that much "richer." I wish that millions
of dollars reflected my tithing like Mitt Romney! :)
pagan:By Matt Kelley, USA TODAYWASHINGTON â Democratic
vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a
year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.Democratic
presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign today released 10 years' worth of
tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community
college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including
$71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.LOOK BACK: McCain, Obama financial recordsThe Bidens reported
giving $995 in charitable donations last year â about 0.3% of their income
and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1%
of yearly income.Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of
$3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income.
In contrast to the Romneys, The Obamas returns show that the couple made very
few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income,
until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House. In 2004, before Mr. Obama
entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of their
taxable income. The next year, the donations jumped to $77,315, or nearly 5
percent of their taxable income. Their charitable giving only went up when it
looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office. (from a NY Times
article dated March 26, 2008 by Leslie Wayne)This just can't be
right. Democrats care more than anyone else about the poor, don't they???
Liberals are VERY generous... with other peoples' money... but not so much with
their own. The Catalogue for Philanthropy has ranked the fifty states on their
relative generosity, comparing each state's average itemized charitable
deductions with its average adjusted gross income (based on 2003 IRS data).The 50-state ranking has a decided Red State-Blue State flavor: 28 of
the 29 "most generous" states are Red States that voted for President
Bush (including all 25 of the "most generous" states), while 17 of the
21 "least generous" states are Blue States that voted for Senator
Kerry (including all 7 of the "least generous" states).To
be fair, the liberal blue states may have legislatures that have imposed
confiscatory state taxes (income, property, sales, etc...) that the study MAY
not have considered and the locals didn't have money to give.The
liberals love government to take money by force and then hand it out to
politically correct causes while conservatives believe that individuals should
be the ones who decide who should get the money.