Romney gave 15% to charity vs Obama's 1%. Discuss

Source please? Even if true, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Thank you. Obama talks the talk but cant walk the walk. Do as I say not as I do. I want to steal everyone elses money to buy votes with while I selfishly hoard all my money. Dont expect this thread to last.

In 2010 Obama gave 14.2% to charity. He was criticized for his low contribution rates prior to becoming a senator. The 1% figure is taken from those years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-20/candidate-gingrich-s-2-6-charitable-donations-low-for-income.html

Sagarin wrote:

Source please? Even if true, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Obama

2000 240505 2350 1.0%

2001 272759 1470 0.5%

2002 259394 1050 0.4%

2003 238327 3400 1.4%

2004 207647 2500 1.2%

2005 1655106 77315 4.7%

2006 983826 60307 6.1%

2007 4139965 240370 5.8%

2008 2656902 172050 6.5%

2009 5505409 329000 6.0%

Biden

2000 219953 360 0.2%

2001 220712 360 0.2%

2002 227811 260 0.1%

2003 231375 260 0.1%

2004 234271 380 0.2%

2005 321379 380 0.1%

2006 248859 380 0.2%

2007 319853 995 0.3%

2008 269256 1885 0.7%

2009 333000 4820 1.4%

Is that what they actually gave, or just what they deducted? Sometimes people do not deduct offerings to their church.

Steve Martin wrote:

Is that what they actually gave, or just what they deducted? Sometimes people do not deduct offerings to their church.

Obama itemized all deductions - including to his racist church.

Sanders Tok wrote:

That government will dish out the charity. Im not going to give charity. Im gonna redistribute the wealth.

I wont vote for the later. I will vote for the former.

Why do you feel that way?

Seems to me that government is a better vehicle for helping the needy than private churches. Strings come attached with churches. You have to listen to their sermons. They wont help you out if you want birth control.

The Govt doesnt impose those strings. those strings are bad for this country and bad for society.

wth?!? wrote:

Seems to me that government is a better vehicle for helping the needy than private churches. Strings come attached with churches. You have to listen to their sermons. They wont help you out if you want birth control.

The Govt doesnt impose those strings. those strings are bad for this country and bad for society.

You're right, the church is not doing a good job of helping others. But, that doesn't mean it's automatically the government's responsibility. It's the people's responsibility. The government has only begun to do it in the past few generations because people are greedier, churches are less people oriented, and, government is taking over what the church SHOULD be doing. Hopefully, this trend will reverse, but, sadly, it's unlikely. People are getting less and less connected, therefore, feel less responsible for others. This situation naturally lends itself to government action...since, no one else is filling the gap. Should it work this way? Absolutely not. Does it? Sadly, yes. Unfortunately, the "power" of the government is taught whereas the power of the people (in the form of the church) is not. Remember, the original Greek meaning for the word we now use as church is eklesia which means "a group of people gathered together for a common purpose". It is only associated with Jesus, but, is not etymologically the case. That being said, the people (the group gathered together for a common purpose) should be doing this. When they fail to, only by force of law and legislation, state authorities take over. In other words, people won't act independently and of their own free wil, so, we will take action on their behalf. The government IS imposing strings. They are just different strings than the church has. And, for the record, most churches don't make you do anything to get support. Also, do you really expect churches to help with birth control?

Democracy is suppose to be government of the people, so therefore it is a church under your definition, who is simple?

Also, I don't expect churches to help people with birth control, but if churches were doing what is best for society, they would. Unfortunately, they do not do what is best for society, so I have grown to not expect them to.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

In 2010 Obama gave 14.2% to charity. He was criticized for his low contribution rates prior to becoming a senator. The 1% figure is taken from those years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-20/candidate-gingrich-s-2-6-charitable-donations-low-for-income.html

That's right. The Obamas never gave pathetic amounts to charity until they were SHAMED into it. Obviously, he couldn't care less about the 99% only about his political career.

Mormons? Good work? More like a big business

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon403.htm

So it shows that Obama has more faith in the government's abilities to help the needy as opposed to charity organizations like the ones Romney donates to. I would want my leader of the executive branch to have faith in the establishment he works for. Obama clearly does; Romney apparently doesn't.

Obama the fraud wrote:

Obviously, he couldn't care less about the 99% only about his political career.

I think to an objective person this conslusion is not so obvious. Perhaps you meant figuratively obvious. The only obvious conclusions one can draw from these figures is that the Obama's income grew eight-fold in 2005 and their charitable giving increased along with it. Biden seems to be pretty tight-fisted but what stands out most from his returns is that after 30yrs in Washington (40yrs now), he doesn't seem to have cashed in like most have. I don't know if that is to be admired or seen as under-achievement on his part.

Romney has no legitimate job to go to every day so he has plenty of time on his hands to give to charity. Obama is running wars and trying to stop terrorist attacks. I don't think Romney would have time for charity either if he changes shoes with Obama.

I'm not sure what churches you guys have been around, but my church does a ton of good with the money that is given by its members. Locally, we donate money and man-power to local soup kitches weekly, provide support for those struggling with alcohol and drug abuse, do construction and yard work for those in need, and provide support for wives and families of those on military deployment, just to name a few. In addition, we have adopted a villiage in South America, providing fresh water, food, clothing, and medical supplies to the people. We also organize at least 4 trips per year where church members visit the villiage and build homes, medical facilities, and places of business.

I'm sure my church isn't the only one that does things like this.

How much did Gingrich give?

Unfortunately, the only thing you can prove is Romney spending time counting his millions. Trust me, "he ain't" spending any time helping the poor. When someone thinks 350K is pocket change, they know nothing about helping anyone. And don't give me this crap about helping his church as they are just as nutty as he is.

Why didn't Obama volunteer to pay more in taxes if the government is so efficient?

Sanders Tok wrote:

That government will dish out the charity. Im not going to give charity. Im gonna redistribute the wealth.

I wont vote for the later. I will vote for the former.

There was a study a few years back on charitable giving. The people who believed that the Government should be helping the poor were the least likely of everyone to give their own money to charity.

The people who give the most to charity were religious people. Didn't matter the religion, and it didnt matter liberal or conservative. And they donated more even when you disallowed donations to religious charities.

Outside of that, Conservatives donated more than Liberals, Poor people donated more than rich people, who both donated more than middle class, as middle class people tended to be stingiest with their money.