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

;kajljdflkj wrote:

Let's hope we get the chance to find out.

He won't, even his own party would choose a lying, womanizing man who doesn't believe in the sanctity of any marriage over a man with some principles.

People will claim as much charity as they can to maximize tax deductions.

If you are truly charitable you wouldn't even list the charitible deductions.

This way you would be giving 100% from you instead of asking the government to give you back 15 to 35%.

Look at 2009 when Obama was making big money (although still a fraction of Mitts) income and he donated about 25% of his income. Are you going to vote for Obama now that he is significantly more generous than Mitt has been?It means that a person making 7 million a year ( a fraction of what Mitt makes) has more disposable income than one making 250k and can afford to donate more cash. I also don't count church tithes as charity as the person donating the money gets too much of a benefit. Factor those out and Romney doesn't come across so great. Look at how and what Romney and his foundation gave money to and there wasn't much that was done to help the common person. 100k for Bushes library and 20k to the heritiage foundation doesn't really replace any government services and is more along the lines of paying off political allies. The amount that Romney gave to "Real" charities (MS, veterans, Katrina) was right in line with the 1-3% that most americans giveAs far as drawing conclusions that Republicans are more generous, lets look at some numbersSarah Palin - 2-3%Dick Cheney ~1% in the 90s when he made over 20 millionHmm doesn't look like they want to dish out a lot of charity. Obviously you can find a lot of democrats and republicans that donate a crap load of money. But looking at as a one year thing isn't very useful. Buffets donations from 1950-2006 were not huge. Then he turned around and gave away 30 billion dollars. So is he generous or cheap?

Sanders Tok wrote:

Each candidate paid the amount of taxes that was owed. So, this is all a wash. Now lets look at charity. Lets look and see what each candidate gave to charity. Something that is not obligated and mandatory. Mitt Romney gave 15% of his income to charity versus Obama who gave just 1%. And VP Biden gave $369 to charity. Big whoop!

This is so telling because it either demonstrates that Romney is more charitable than Obama. Or it explains the entitlement mentality of obama. 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.

wth?!? wrote:

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.

Compare Government vs. Church relief efforts after Katrina against Government vs. Church relief efforts after the Teton Dam disaster.

Before bashing Romney or Obama, and before you list all sorts of generalizations about churches in general, maybe it would be beneficial to look at how churches are helping those in need. Here is some general information on what the Mormon church does.

http://lds.org/service/humanitarian/church?lang=eng

Anyone have any info on other churches and how they help? Maybe there would be a way to compare what churches do to the government aid that is given in order to provide some evidence to fuel the arguments for or against church donations. I find this preferred over spouting off opinions that have no facts to back them up.

What percentage of the money that is donated to a church goes towards those goals and what percentage goes to paying clergy, paying for buildings, .... ? If the mormon church is anything like the catholic church (the only one I have seen numbers for), it is about 10%. (depends a bit on how you count somethings like schools). Obviously 10% of a big number is a big number so you can do some good but most of the money is used to maintain the institution and provide services to the person that made the donations.I would be willing to bet that 100 million given to the food stamps program will help more people than 100 million given to any church. Government overhead is bad but it isn't going to be in the 90% range.

go to the source wrote:

Before bashing Romney or Obama, and before you list all sorts of generalizations about churches in general, maybe it would be beneficial to look at how churches are helping those in need. Here is some general information on what the Mormon church does.

http://lds.org/service/humanitarian/church?lang=eng

Anyone have any info on other churches and how they help? Maybe there would be a way to compare what churches do to the government aid that is given in order to provide some evidence to fuel the arguments for or against church donations. I find this preferred over spouting off opinions that have no facts to back them up.

Republikkan wrote:

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.

Does Mitt's 15% also include his tithing the Mormon church? (10%)

Very little of the money the church receives from it's members goes to missionary work. The missionaries generally pay their own way. Here is a link showing the humanitarian work the church has done. It's the most recent one I could find.

http://www.providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/WelfareFactSheet.pdf

It shows money and product given to disaster relief efforts since 1985.

Along with the donations of money and product, Mormon's are known for providing hours of time of service within and out of their church. Here is an example from Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6giBfS5VyeM

So, before assuming what the church does or doesn't do, some quick research shows some wonderful work being completed by the church and its members whether you believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ or not.

To be honest I do not know what percentage of donations goes to humanitarian aid. The Mormon church does not have a paid clergy, so there are going to be far fewer expenses for the church in comparison to other churches. Also, when members of the church donate money they can choose to specifically donate money to a humanitarian aid fund. Money donated in this way would all go towards helping those in need, although this would be a separate donation in addition to the 10% given as tithing.

critic 100 wrote:

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.

What? I think you missed something in this thread. Those numbers refer to $ not hours. Maybe it takes you a couple hours to write a check, but to the average joe, it's not a matter of time, but instead a matter of wealth and desire.

If the OP had been talking about time spent volunteering, I would agree with your statement having validity, but that's not what anyone here is talking about.

But, to be honest, I can't fault Obama, because I don't give much to charity either. I just thought your statement was ridiculous because I think obviously it showed you're an Obama fan, who will make statements to support him even if it has no relation to the conversation.

draftee wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but he gave the vast majority of those "charitable contributions" to his church - the Mormon church. It hasn't been said much lately, but he Romney still hasa "Mormon problem." The fact that he gave millions to his church only stokes the worries of those who think that if elected president Romney will use his position to elevate the position and influence of his church beyond what is healthy. He didn't give his money to the boys and girs club, fresh air fund, to save the whales, etc., he gave it to a church which many people, whether or not you like it, view as cultish, racist, and other not so pleasant things. Talking up how much he gave to charity i.e. the Mormon church is probably not the best tack for Romney supporters.

Who cares how many people view it? I'm not Mormon, nor am I a Romney supporter, but why all the hate on Mormonism? Maybe it's because I'm an atheist and I view all religions with a hint of the silliness, but how are they any worse than any other not as "cultish" religion? Other sects of Christianity, Islam, even Atheism, etc. all have instances where they can be seen as "cultish, racist, and other not so pleasant things." If we were talking about the FLDS, then maybe I could see you making more of an argument...

bwahahaha wrote:

To the anti-Obama crowd-

"Yes! Yesss! Oh, let me taste your tears...Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!"-Eric Cartman

The funny thing is you were probably one of the people who cried all the time during the Bush years.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

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.

If you read the study you'd have noted that vast majority of money conservatives gave to "charity" was to their church and most of that money went to church operations not charitable works. Tithing isn't "charity", it's demand by the church.

Removing church giving money contributions are about equal between liberals and conservatives. When you look at hours of community service it gets extreamly subjective and is very easy to bias. The survey that asks "how many hours do you volunteer" is a loaded question. Is volunteering for a finish line really "charity" if it's your running club asking? How about directing a road race for Hospice? I wouldn't consider the first "charity" but would consider the 2nd.

From what I've seen conservatives seem to buy forgiveness not unlike the old days when the church sold undulgences. You don't find a lot of conservatives doing real charity work, they're all on a "mission" trying to create more converts instead is truely helping the needed. Feeding someone in need is helping the needy, telling someone they must accept Jesus Christ as their savior in order to eat is cohersion.

So who cares?

VOTE THEM ALL OUT.

Romney gave it to the mormon.. church.. which is not a charity its a racist religion that believes black people have black skin because they are cursed. Sure now they have reformed that but these waco's are crazy as shit.

romney is 20x wealtier than obama that is why

Dear U.S. Taxpayers,

I understand many of you feel that you do not pay your fair share. Please feel free to write a check or send a money order to the U.S. Treasury because we do in fact collect donations. (Mr. Buffet and President Obama Included)

Sincerely,

People against raising taxes

Charity preserves the weak

Keith Stone wrote:

telling someone they must accept Jesus Christ as their savior in order to eat is cohersion.

Who does that? I'm guessing most religious charities don't do that.