Comparing charitable giving

[TitanTiger 20,542]

For a fair comparison ... Cheney is at least in his 60s right? ... I'd like to see his tax returns from his late 30s and 40s. Your comparing a man who has already amassed his fortunes to someone who just made his first million. Apples and oranges to say the least.

Why would being in one's 60s versus your 40s account for this large a disparity? It would be one thing if we were talking about the difference between 5-6% and 10-15%. But 6% vs 78%? And Rick Warren is in his late 40s I believe, just to show another example.

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

It wasn't mentioned because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject. Just like Muslim fathers and racist pastors weren't mentioned. I swear you and arnold have been getting together for beers and conversation lately.

Why aere you bringing me into this, and it's arnaldo

Because you are king of the dumbass, off-topic post that comes out of left field and has no resemblance whatsoever to the subject being discussed.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

It's still fairly generous at over 12% of his income.

Look, I realize they are in different places in life, but Obama isn't struggling to put kids through school or plan for their college educations on a cool one million dollars. Not even close.

I think as much as Democrats espouse taking care of the least of these, you'd think they would be more generous with charity. But neither he nor Clinton were particularly generous. Nor were Kerry or Gore. It strikes me as odd.

Ever heard of the Heinz Foundation?

Anywho, Titan, I believe your flaw was even mentioning Obama in the original post..again why not just put a post about Cheney's charitable giving if you were so enamored with the numbers? You weren't trying to score political points were you?

Because I stumbled upon that article and it struck me as odd that Cheney, a guy who gets castigated for "greed" and someone I don't even personally like all that much, gave that much of his income while Mr. Empathy managed to part with only 5-6% of his. Again, not saying he should have given 78% like Cheney, but I'd think he could come off a little more. If the working poor can average 5-6% on what they make, surely people making seven figures can do at least 10%.

[AUTiger1 0]

I think Tzedakah and Mitvah comes in many forms. I'll leave it at that.

Curious to why you asked and had me waste my time by typing all that since you already had your mind made up?

Tezedkah which would be a religious obligation to perform charity and Mitzvah which is a worthy deed may come in many forms if you are a practicing Jew. A Christian as I said gives as prospered in monetary means so that the church may operate, and worthy deeds are to be done daily anyways. I'll leave it at that.

[RunInRed 16,528]

Well...I did not ask YOU to respond to anything. You volunteered your perspective and I appreciate you answering the question.

Although you did not answer this part of the question...what do you believe happens if a person does not give 10%? B/C I would bet, that's probably 99% of the world who don't monetarily give that much.

[AUTiger1 0]

Well...I did not ask YOU to respond to anything. You volunteered your perspective and I appreciate you answering the question.

Although you did not answer this part of the question...what do you believe happens if a person does not give 10%? B/C I would bet, that's probably 99% of the world who don't monetarily give that much.

Well one that didn't give 10% under the Law of Moses it was pretty clear what would happen to them. God would curse them. Can't honestly say what would happen if one didn't give 10% or how they have prospered (New Testament is free-will giving). God is the judge not me. Although in Acts 4 or 5 there was a couple that denied their tithe to God and they died. And we are held accountable for our actions and others salvation and if we didn't do our part in giving so that the Gospel is spread then I would say that we would be sinning and if one dies in sin without repentance then one would go to hell, but as I said God is the judge and I am not prepared to tell anyone they are going to hell. Not my job nor is it my place. I don't know about 99%, you would be surprised how much people give. I will say that a lot of people don't give what they should and that is sad.

[AUTiger1 0]

Option 1:

That would be your elected congress

So if you are "a Christian" where does it state (I assume you are referencing a literal interpretation of some new testament passage) that you have to a certain percantage of your income...and what is that percentage? And I assume if you don't, you're going to hell right?

I thought you were asking in general, I will assume that it was directed at CCTAU.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Where does it say you have to be a Christain to be President.You had better be afraid of those Zorastrians.

Well, we let mental midgets post here...so I guess we could relax our rules on who can be president.

Mental Midgets? Your the Bama fan.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Where does it say you have to be a Christain to be President.You had better be afraid of those Zorastrians.

Well, we let mental midgets post here...so I guess we could relax our rules on who can be president.

Mental Midgets? Your the Bama fan.

Your = you possesive

You're = you are

Nice job.

[arnaldoabru 11]

For a fair comparison ... Cheney is at least in his 60s right? ... I'd like to see his tax returns from his late 30s and 40s. Your comparing a man who has already amassed his fortunes to someone who just made his first million. Apples and oranges to say the least.

Why would being in one's 60s versus your 40s account for this large a disparity? It would be one thing if we were talking about the difference between 5-6% and 10-15%. But 6% vs 78%? And Rick Warren is in his late 40s I believe, just to show another example.

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

It wasn't mentioned because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject. Just like Muslim fathers and racist pastors weren't mentioned. I swear you and arnold have been getting together for beers and conversation lately.

Why aere you bringing me into this, and it's arnaldo

Because you are king of the dumbass, off-topic post that comes out of left field and has no resemblance whatsoever to the subject being discussed.

I don't believe I've ever called anyone a name.I don't give a s#$t how much Chaney gave to charity,he's still the devil.

[CCTAU 3,355]

Option 1:

That would be your elected congress

So if you are "a Christian" where does it state (I assume you are referencing a literal interpretation of some new testament passage) that you have to a certain percantage of your income...and what is that percentage? And I assume if you don't, you're going to hell right?

I thought you were asking in general, I will assume that it was directed at CCTAU.

As soon as RiR asked the question, my point was made. You explained it much better and with more patience than I could have. Thank you.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

For a fair comparison ... Cheney is at least in his 60s right? ... I'd like to see his tax returns from his late 30s and 40s. Your comparing a man who has already amassed his fortunes to someone who just made his first million. Apples and oranges to say the least.

Why would being in one's 60s versus your 40s account for this large a disparity? It would be one thing if we were talking about the difference between 5-6% and 10-15%. But 6% vs 78%? And Rick Warren is in his late 40s I believe, just to show another example.

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

It wasn't mentioned because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject. Just like Muslim fathers and racist pastors weren't mentioned. I swear you and arnold have been getting together for beers and conversation lately.

Why aere you bringing me into this, and it's arnaldo

Because you are king of the dumbass, off-topic post that comes out of left field and has no resemblance whatsoever to the subject being discussed.

I don't believe I've ever called anyone a name.I don't give a s#$t how much Chaney gave to charity,he's still the devil.

I didn't call you a name. I called your posts "dumbass, off-topic post(s)." Even a smart person can put up a dumbass post every now and then. Though I don't think that particular scenario is indicative of your situation.

And the statement about Cheney just goes to show that you still are missing the point.

[AURainman 6]

I think we've all missed the point here. Obama gets to claim HIS taxes as charitable contributions, because he intends on "changing" government into his own socialist charity. Right? So Obama's intentions are actually more noble. Right? I mean, he wants Big Gubment to take care of those little people. So therefore, charitable contributions are not necessary. Right?

[RunInRed 16,528]

In light of recent news that Cheney gave "just" 5% this past year, I thought this thread was worth a bump.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

In light of recent news that Cheney gave "just" 5% this past year, I thought this thread was worth a bump.

In light that when you look at the past 8 years worth of returns from Cheney, he gave 23% on average and Bush gave 12% on average, compared to Obama's 2.2% on average, I'd have left the thread alone if I were you.

[RunInRed 16,528]

In light of recent news that Cheney gave "just" 5% this past year, I thought this thread was worth a bump.

In light that when you look at the past 8 years worth of returns from Cheney, he gave 23% on average and Bush gave 12% on average, compared to Obama's 2.2% on average, I'd have left the thread alone if I were you.

Why the big decrease this year? I mean, he made $3M last year...maybe he needed the money...or maybe his principles/priorities have changed?

As Obama's income has increased his charitable giving has increased. Looks like the trend for Cheney is going the other way. Or maybe he just had one bad year...I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

[CCTAU 3,355]

In light of recent news that Cheney gave "just" 5% this past year, I thought this thread was worth a bump.

In light that when you look at the past 8 years worth of returns from Cheney, he gave 23% on average and Bush gave 12% on average, compared to Obama's 2.2% on average, I'd have left the thread alone if I were you.

Why the big decrease this year? I mean, he made $3M last year...maybe he needed the money...or maybe his principles/priorities have changed?

As Obama's income has increased his charitable giving has increased. Looks like the trend for Cheney is going the other way. Or maybe he just had one bad year...I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

What a stupid statement. Cheney gave what? 78% in 06 and 5% in 07. I believe for the two years in question, he still out gave achmed by a HUGE amount. And I never saw Cheney running around preaching like achmed does. Still brings up the question of how can you claim to be a Christian and not give AT LEAST 10%?

Achmed is a poser. He wants to spend MY money helping others and keep his in the bank. Typical dimocrat.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

In light of recent news that Cheney gave "just" 5% this past year, I thought this thread was worth a bump.

In light that when you look at the past 8 years worth of returns from Cheney, he gave 23% on average and Bush gave 12% on average, compared to Obama's 2.2% on average, I'd have left the thread alone if I were you.

Why the big decrease this year? I mean, he made $3M last year...maybe he needed the money...or maybe his principles/priorities have changed?

As Obama's income has increased his charitable giving has increased. Looks like the trend for Cheney is going the other way. Or maybe he just had one bad year...I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Only you could look at those numbers and come away thinking this way. Actually, Cheney's numbers have gone up and down. Interestingly, the years of two of his biggest amounts in giving were the years he made the least relatively. In 2003, on an income that was $200k less than Obama made this year, he gave 39%. Another year he made around $300k more but gave 22%

Bottom line, Obama has been rather miserly on the giving while Bush and Cheney have been more than generous in the same time span. Even on Cheney's "down year" he's right at Obama's best.

[RunInRed 16,528]

In light of recent news that Cheney gave "just" 5% this past year, I thought this thread was worth a bump.

In light that when you look at the past 8 years worth of returns from Cheney, he gave 23% on average and Bush gave 12% on average, compared to Obama's 2.2% on average, I'd have left the thread alone if I were you.

Why the big decrease this year? I mean, he made $3M last year...maybe he needed the money...or maybe his principles/priorities have changed?

As Obama's income has increased his charitable giving has increased. Looks like the trend for Cheney is going the other way. Or maybe he just had one bad year...I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Only you could look at those numbers and come away thinking this way. Actually, Cheney's numbers have gone up and down. Interestingly, the years of two of his biggest amounts in giving were the years he made the least relatively. In 2003, on an income that was $200k less than Obama made this year, he gave 39%. Another year he made around $300k more but gave 22%

Bottom line, Obama has been rather miserly on the giving while Bush and Cheney have been more than generous in the same time span. Even on Cheney's "down year" he's right at Obama's best.

Obama does not give enough to charity and he wants to kill babies...got it. At least you are up to 2 issues now.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

In light of recent news that Cheney gave "just" 5% this past year, I thought this thread was worth a bump.

In light that when you look at the past 8 years worth of returns from Cheney, he gave 23% on average and Bush gave 12% on average, compared to Obama's 2.2% on average, I'd have left the thread alone if I were you.

Why the big decrease this year? I mean, he made $3M last year...maybe he needed the money...or maybe his principles/priorities have changed?

As Obama's income has increased his charitable giving has increased. Looks like the trend for Cheney is going the other way. Or maybe he just had one bad year...I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Only you could look at those numbers and come away thinking this way. Actually, Cheney's numbers have gone up and down. Interestingly, the years of two of his biggest amounts in giving were the years he made the least relatively. In 2003, on an income that was $200k less than Obama made this year, he gave 39%. Another year he made around $300k more but gave 22%

Bottom line, Obama has been rather miserly on the giving while Bush and Cheney have been more than generous in the same time span. Even on Cheney's "down year" he's right at Obama's best.

Obama does not give enough to charity and he wants to kill babies...got it. At least you are up to 2 issues now.

You get really snippy when you don't have good rebuttal arguments.

I wouldn't not vote for someone over charitable giving. I just find it ironic that the party that purports to care more about the poor than those mean, greedy Republicans continues to have their major candidates give paltry amounts to charity while their GOP counterparts give far above the national averages. And it's not a situation where one gives in taxes and the other gives in private donations. Both are being taxed pretty highly because of their income levels but one side is giving above and beyond that and the other side is just talking a big game about caring. You love to paint the issue as something trifling when it really goes to the core of whether a person walks the talk. It's rhetoric vs reality.

And I didn't exactly say he "wants" to kill babies. I said that he does virtually nothing to stop it, favoring ideology over common decency. That's bad in its own right, but not exactly to the level of seeking out babies to kill or reveling in their demise.

[RunInRed 16,528]

In light of recent news that Cheney gave "just" 5% this past year, I thought this thread was worth a bump.

In light that when you look at the past 8 years worth of returns from Cheney, he gave 23% on average and Bush gave 12% on average, compared to Obama's 2.2% on average, I'd have left the thread alone if I were you.

Why the big decrease this year? I mean, he made $3M last year...maybe he needed the money...or maybe his principles/priorities have changed?

As Obama's income has increased his charitable giving has increased. Looks like the trend for Cheney is going the other way. Or maybe he just had one bad year...I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Only you could look at those numbers and come away thinking this way. Actually, Cheney's numbers have gone up and down. Interestingly, the years of two of his biggest amounts in giving were the years he made the least relatively. In 2003, on an income that was $200k less than Obama made this year, he gave 39%. Another year he made around $300k more but gave 22%

Bottom line, Obama has been rather miserly on the giving while Bush and Cheney have been more than generous in the same time span. Even on Cheney's "down year" he's right at Obama's best.

Obama does not give enough to charity and he wants to kill babies...got it. At least you are up to 2 issues now.

You get really snippy when you don't have good rebuttal arguments.

I wouldn't not vote for someone over charitable giving. I just find it ironic that the party that purports to care more about the poor than those mean, greedy Republicans continues to have their major candidates give paltry amounts to charity while their GOP counterparts give far above the national averages. And it's not a situation where one gives in taxes and the other gives in private donations. Both are being taxed pretty highly because of their income levels but one side is giving above and beyond that and the other side is just talking a big game about caring. You love to paint the issue as something trifling when it really goes to the core of whether a person walks the talk. It's rhetoric vs reality.

And I didn't exactly say he "wants" to kill babies. I said that he does virtually nothing to stop it, favoring ideology over common decency. That's bad in its own right, but not exactly to the level of seeking out babies to kill or reveling in their demise.

You call it not having good rebuttals, I call it a wasteful argument. We have two very different views on both issues so what is the point in getting into a detailed back and forth? My post was merely to point to the fluctuations in Cheney's giving and demonstrate that his 70%+ number you were parading around a few weeks ago appears to be an anomaly. Unlike some, I refuse to make judgements on someone based on their charitable giving. Also, you are trying to point to a big picture stereotype that I have yet to hear Obama espouse. Do you have a link where Obama has called Republicans "mean and greedy" or has TM just been whispering in your ear again?

As for abortions, we have beat this issue to death in many other threads...in fact, I believe you and I have gone back and forth on this one topic several times. You know my position, I know yours. We disagree on what we believe about it, how we prioritize it, and what we think it says about the candidates.

The last point I will make is that I find it very very very telling that come every election year the Republicans end up making a lot of noise and always try to get traction over the same 3-4 general topics: abortion, guns, religion, and fear.

[Tigermike 3,078]

As for abortions, we have beat this issue to death in many other threads...in fact, I believe you and I have gone back and forth on this one topic several times. You know my position, I know yours. We have a difference in what we think, how we prioritize it, and the conclusions we come from the candidate's positions.

The last point I will make is that I find it very very very telling that come every election year the Republicans end up making huge issues over the same 3-4 general topics: abortion, guns, religion, and fear.

rr has received the memo.

Not saying Obama is arrogant or anything like that.

[RunInRed 16,528]

TM is talking in cartoons again - cute. I hope you atleast have this propoganda saved in a desktop folder so you don't have to go googling for this every time.

[Tigermike 3,078]

TM is talking in cartoons again - cute. I hope you atleast have this propoganda saved in a desktop folder so you don't have to go googling for this every time.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

You call it not having good rebuttals, I call it a wasteful argument. We have two very different views on both issues so what is the point in getting into a detailed back and forth? My post was merely to point to the fluctuations in Cheney's giving and demonstrate that his 70%+ number you were parading around a few weeks ago appears to be an anomaly. Unlike some, I refuse to make judgements on someone based on their charitable giving. Also, you are trying to point to a big picture stereotype that I have yet to hear Obama espouse. Do you have a link where Obama has called Republicans "mean and greedy" or has TM just been whispering in your ear again?

Obama? No, he has not said that. He and the other Dems have trotted out the tired stereotype of them being the party of caring about the poor and the GOP being all about the rich. I just find it interesting that if he wins the nomination, it will be at least the 3rd straight candidate who wasn't much of a giver vs their GOP counterpart.

As for abortions, we have beat this issue to death in many other threads...in fact, I believe you and I have gone back and forth on this one topic several times. You know my position, I know yours. We disagree on what we believe about it, how we prioritize it, and what we think it says about the candidates.

Then stop marginalizing the issue by using the worn-out "litmus test" jab.

The last point I will make is that I find it very very very telling that come every election year the Republicans end up making a lot of noice and always try to get traction over the same 3-4 general topics: abortion, guns, religion, and fear.

If you are so blind that you don't see the same thing on the other side, except the 3-4 pages of the playbook change, you really are deluded.