Bushes give 18% of income to charity

[TitanTiger 21,237]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and his wife paid $221,635 in federal taxes on an adjusted gross income of $923,807 for the year 2007.

The income total includes a $150,000 advance received by Laura Bush for the children's book she co-authored with her daughter, Jenna.

Last year, the president and Mrs. Bush paid $186,378 in federal taxes on their income of $765,801.

Bush's salary as president is about $400,000.

Also Friday, the White House reported that Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, had an adjusted gross income of $3.04 million in 2007.

The Cheneys owed $602,651 in federal taxes on that income. They have paid $466,165 through withholdings and estimated tax payments, and will pay the remaining $136,486 upon filing their tax return.

The Cheneys' income includes the vice president's salary and a pension he gets as a former director of Union Pacific Corp. It also includes Lynne Cheney's book royalty income, a salary from her work at the American Enterprise Institute and a pension she gets as a former director of Reader's Digest.

The vice president's salary is about $212,000.

The Bushes contributed $165,660 to churches and charitable organizations, including the volunteer fire department in Crawford, Texas, where they own a ranch. The Cheneys donated $166,547 to charity in 2007, the White House said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

[RunInRed 18,318]

Is Cheney backing off his 87%?

[AURaptor 1,137]

runinred, nice obfuscation over the issue of what the Clinton's give, how much, and to whom.

[TexasTiger 14,275]

The irony is, both Bush and Cheney's wealth has come from tax payers. Glad they're giving something back.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and his wife paid $221,635 in federal taxes on an adjusted gross income of $923,807 for the year 2007.

The income total includes a $150,000 advance received by Laura Bush for the children's book she co-authored with her daughter, Jenna.

Last year, the president and Mrs. Bush paid $186,378 in federal taxes on their income of $765,801.

Bush's salary as president is about $400,000.

Also Friday, the White House reported that Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, had an adjusted gross income of $3.04 million in 2007.

The Cheneys owed $602,651 in federal taxes on that income. They have paid $466,165 through withholdings and estimated tax payments, and will pay the remaining $136,486 upon filing their tax return.

The Cheneys' income includes the vice president's salary and a pension he gets as a former director of Union Pacific Corp. It also includes Lynne Cheney's book royalty income, a salary from her work at the American Enterprise Institute and a pension she gets as a former director of Reader's Digest.

The vice president's salary is about $212,000.

The Bushes contributed $165,660 to churches and charitable organizations, including the volunteer fire department in Crawford, Texas, where they own a ranch. The Cheneys donated $166,547 to charity in 2007, the White House said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

[RunInRed 18,318]

runinred, nice obfuscation over the issue of what the Clinton's give, how much, and to whom.

The issue is what Clinton gave? I must have missed that part of Titan's post. For the record, I believe the Clintons gave about 10%, Cheney gave 5% (166k on 3.04M)...Bush seems to be about at 15%.

So what's your point?

[GoAU 1,694]

The irony is, both Bush and Cheney's wealth has come from tax payers. Glad they're giving something back.

You've got to be kidding right? They're elected officials, I would hope most of their income would come from the tax payers. Most of HIllary and Obama's income would have come from their constituants as well.

[TexasTiger 14,275]

The irony is, both Bush and Cheney's wealth has come from tax payers. Glad they're giving something back.

You've got to be kidding right? They're elected officials, I would hope most of their income would come from the tax payers. Most of HIllary and Obama's income would have come from their constituants as well.

Not kidding. Do your homework. Their "wages" are not the primary source of their income. Their "wealth" has been largely derived from taxpayers-- Cheney's from federal taxes since the bulk of his money came from Halliburton that gets most of its money from the federal government and Bush's from the taxpayers in the Dallas area:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...0/jackson.bush/

[BamaGrad03 0]

So now if you own or work for a company that has government contracts, you should be held to a different standard?

[TexasTiger 14,275]

So now if you own or work for a company that has government contracts, you should be held to a different standard?

Boy, you just make up your own opposing arguments, don't you?

[DKW 86 7,899]

Guys, the Dems have successfully hijacked or derailed this thread. Please wake up. The real point? The liberal idea that Conserevatives do not contribute to charity is just a freakin joke and has been successfully imploded.

[TexasTiger 14,275]

Guys, the Dems have successfully hijacked or derailed this thread. Please wake up. The real point? The liberal idea that Conserevatives do not contribute to charity is just a freakin joke and has been successfully imploded.

Got a link to that "liberal idea?"

[TexasTiger 14,275]

As I prepare my taxes I am reminded that I don't do a good job of keeping track of my contributions to various charities I contribute to. Which also reminds me that my tax return will not be at all reflective of what I've given. Tax returns only show us what people deduct. Just a thought.

[Tigermike 3,711]

As I prepare my taxes I am reminded that I don't do a good job of keeping track of my contributions to various charities I contribute to. Which also reminds me that my tax return will not be at all reflective of what I've given. Tax returns only show us what people deduct. Just a thought.

I don't think anyone is pumping up the $1 or $2 dropped in the red buckets at Christmas.

[TexasTiger 14,275]

As I prepare my taxes I am reminded that I don't do a good job of keeping track of my contributions to various charities I contribute to. Which also reminds me that my tax return will not be at all reflective of what I've given. Tax returns only show us what people deduct. Just a thought.

I don't think anyone is pumping up the $1 or $2 dropped in the red buckets at Christmas.

Not what I'm referring to. And to be clear, I suspect most of the folks we've been talking about here tend to keep better records than I do and perhaps their tax forms are an accurate reflection of what they actually give. But I also suspect that many folks don't keep great records about what they give.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Guys, the Dems have successfully hijacked or derailed this thread. Please wake up. The real point? The liberal idea that Conserevatives do not contribute to charity is just a freakin joke and has been successfully imploded.

Got a link to that "liberal idea?"

Tex, the Will article and And here too.

Even discussed already on an AUN thread that you somehow never paticipated in. Truly shocking....

[TexasTiger 14,275]

Guys, the Dems have successfully hijacked or derailed this thread. Please wake up. The real point? The liberal idea that Conserevatives do not contribute to charity is just a freakin joke and has been successfully imploded.

Got a link to that "liberal idea?"

Tex, the Will article and And here too.

Even discussed already on an AUN thread that you somehow never paticipated in. Truly shocking....

Those articles only make the case that conservatives give more. I want to know where you come up with the notion that it is some well-established "liberal position" that conservatives don't give to charity. If I didn't engage in a discussion on that, it is because I have never believed that.

[TitanTiger 21,237]

Actually, I'd phrase it that liberals generally consider themselves to be the generous ones and the ones that are most concerned about the poor while conservatives are greedy and stingy.

[TexasTiger 14,275]

Actually, I'd phrase it that liberals generally consider themselves to be the generous ones and the ones that are most concerned about the poor while conservatives are greedy and stingy.

Most "liberals" I know distinguish between rank-and-file religious conservatives who tend to give money, at least to their church, and folks like Grover Norquist who don't see much of a role for government in assisting the poor. Some of that money conservatives give goes to churches with great ministry programs, some goes to building more ornate church facilities, a better pipe organ, a luxury car for the pastor, etc. Churches may also do some "good" things that don't necessarily help others outside their congregation or the poor.

In the sixties, and still today, many folks gave charitable tax-deductible contributions to form "Christian" academies that were founded largely in response to integration.

"Charity" is a broad term. I remember a few years ago that Barbara Bush had a significant "charitable" tax deduction that was directed to buying educational materials from Neil Bush.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/3742329.html

All charitable contributions don't necessarily ameliorate the effects of poverty. Charities protect animals, the environment, buildings, promote spreading certain religious beliefs/practices, including Islamic madrassas, and all number of things that may not help the poor. Liberals tend to want more of a government role in addressing the needs of the poor and are willing to pay the higher taxes to do it. This is a political difference. Conservatives are free to argue that their non-government approach is superior, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are more generous than a liberal who says, "tax me more to help those who need it more."

[RunInRed 18,318]

Actually, I'd phrase it that liberals generally consider themselves to be the generous ones and the ones that are most concerned about the poor while conservatives are greedy and stingy.

Why did Cheney "only" give 5% on 3M? Weren't you guys criticizing Obama for only giving ~6% in the second year in his life that he ever had an income of $1M? Weren't you lauding Cheney for giving huge percentages a few days ago? As usual, double standards abound.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Actually, I'd phrase it that liberals generally consider themselves to be the generous ones and the ones that are most concerned about the poor while conservatives are greedy and stingy.

Why did Cheney "only" give 5% on 3M? Weren't you guys criticizing Obama for only giving ~6% in the second year in his life that he ever had an income of $1M? Weren't you lauding Cheney for giving huge percentages a few days ago? As usual, double standards abound.

Got a link for those percentages?

[RunInRed 18,318]

Actually, I'd phrase it that liberals generally consider themselves to be the generous ones and the ones that are most concerned about the poor while conservatives are greedy and stingy.

Why did Cheney "only" give 5% on 3M? Weren't you guys criticizing Obama for only giving ~6% in the second year in his life that he ever had an income of $1M? Weren't you lauding Cheney for giving huge percentages a few days ago? As usual, double standards abound.

Got a link for those percentages?

See above for Cheney and Bush. Obama's was posted in previous threads or can be easily googled - all his tax returns have been made available.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Actually, I'd phrase it that liberals generally consider themselves to be the generous ones and the ones that are most concerned about the poor while conservatives are greedy and stingy.

Why did Cheney "only" give 5% on 3M? Weren't you guys criticizing Obama for only giving ~6% in the second year in his life that he ever had an income of $1M? Weren't you lauding Cheney for giving huge percentages a few days ago? As usual, double standards abound.

Got a link for those percentages?

See above for Cheney and Bush. Obama's was posted in previous threads or can be easily googled - all his tax returns have been made available.

No if you state it here as fact, then back it up, don't state something as fact then tell everyone else to do your work for you. Because frankly, I/we don't trust you any more than we do Obama.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Actually, I'd phrase it that liberals generally consider themselves to be the generous ones and the ones that are most concerned about the poor while conservatives are greedy and stingy.

Why did Cheney "only" give 5% on 3M? Weren't you guys criticizing Obama for only giving ~6% in the second year in his life that he ever had an income of $1M? Weren't you lauding Cheney for giving huge percentages a few days ago? As usual, double standards abound.

Got a link for those percentages?

See above for Cheney and Bush. Obama's was posted in previous threads or can be easily googled - all his tax returns have been made available.

No if you state it here as fact, then back it up, don't state something as fact then tell everyone else to do your work for you. Because frankly, I/we don't trust you any more than we do Obama.

[/quote

You tell'm TigerMike. It's only fact if it comes from the World Net Daily.

[Tigermike 3,711]

You tell'm TigerMike. It's only fact if it comes from the World Net Daily.

Or in your case the outhouse.

[TitanTiger 21,237]

Actually, I'd phrase it that liberals generally consider themselves to be the generous ones and the ones that are most concerned about the poor while conservatives are greedy and stingy.

Why did Cheney "only" give 5% on 3M? Weren't you guys criticizing Obama for only giving ~6% in the second year in his life that he ever had an income of $1M? Weren't you lauding Cheney for giving huge percentages a few days ago? As usual, double standards abound.

Obama has not been hurting for money for quite some time and even before he made $1 million in a year, he made in excess of $200k, putting him in the top 2% or so of wage earners in this country and he was only giving around 1%. I mean, even if Cheney's giving went down to a mere 5% the year after giving 78%, I think basic math tells you he's still way ahead of the game.

For instance, let's look at Bush's tax returns and charitable giving:

On his 2007 return, President Bush made a little under $1 million in and managed to give 18% as noted on the first post of the thread.

In 2006 he made $642,000 and gave over 12%..

In 2005, he made $618,000 and again, gave over 12%.

In 2004, he made $672,000 and gave 11.5%

In 2003, he made $727,000 and gave over 9%.

In 2002, he made $771,000 and gave 9%.

In 2001, he made $711,000 and gave 11.6%.

In 2000, he made $744,000 and gave 19%.

Bush's average giving since 2000: 12.8% of his income

FWIW, I went back and check Cheney's giving over the same time. I'm not going to link but Google will verify everything:

2007: 6.5%

2006: 6.4

2005: 78

2004: 22.8

2003: 39

2002: 7.7

2001: 1.8

2000: 21.6

Cheney's average giving: 23%

In any TexasTiger's point, it's not like Cheney and Bush aren't paying taxes. This giving is on top of paying all the taxes that they pay, so it's not like liberals are giving at the office while conservatives are just giving to private charity. Nothing precludes one from doing both.

On the other hand, Obama since 2000 has given an average of 2.2% to charity on average income of $551,000. If Bush can manage 12% on average income of $733,000 during the same time, I think Obama could squeeze out a good bit more than 2.2%. While I'll admit Cheney's financial situation is far beyond most people's and isn't as comparable, he still gave an amazing percentage of his income on average.