SHOP AMAZON THROUGH MY LINK!!

Monday, February 16, 2009

This is for the Little People.

With all this talk lately about "spreading the wealth" and socialism, I thought I would devote a post comparing how much or how little our political leaders give to charity in order to help the poor. Read on:

In 2006 and 2007 the Obamas gave 5.8 and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. (1)
The Bidens gave 0.15 and 0.31 percent(2) while during the same two years, John and Cindy McCain gave a whopping 27.3 percent in 2006 and 28.6 percent in 2007.(3)

Now the natural response to the McCain's charitable giving is that McCain has a wife who is a multi-millionaire. Well so does John Kerry and in 1995 he gave NOTHING to charity, which was down from what he gave in 1994, a total of $2,039. Now hold on to the chair you're sitting on because in 1993, he gave a generous $175.00.(4)
But, wait I almost forgot, in 1995 John Kerry did spend $500,000 to buy a painting for the wall of one of his houses. Talk about self-fulfillment.

Al Gore in 1998 gave a whopping $353.00 while pulling in a salary of $197,729.00 and when Senator Edward Kennedy (D) Massachusetts released his tax returns in the 1970's it was proven that he gave less than 1% of his income to charity. Senator Kennedy was worth in excess of $100 million in 2006. (5)

George Bush regularly gave in excess of 10% of his income away during the eight years as president. During those same years when Obama was making three times the amount that George W. Bush was, he gave away less than 2% to charitable causes.(6)

The big winner though has to be VP Dick Cheney who during 2005 gave 77% of his income to charity. (7)

These figures were really eye-opening and led me to a startling conclusion, that liberals just want to give OUR MONEY and not theirs, to the poor.


Sources:

(1),(2)and(3): TaxProf blog. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/09/biden-releases.html.
(4): Peter Schweizer, Movers and Takers
(5): http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36890.html
(6), and (7): Peter Schweizer, Movers and Takers p. 58-62

1 comment:

  1. It might be shocking, but it's not surprising. Liberals think government should take care of everyone--why should charities? If tax dollars and borrowing from China can support charities why should liberals open their wallets. Sounds reasonable to any self-respecting socialist!

    By the way, did you hear Phil Gramm agree with Maxine Waters that the banks MIGHT need to be nationalized (yesterday on Stephanopolous' show). Way to go Phil! Idiot!

    ReplyDelete

I love comments anonymous or otherwise but, I'd like to ask for respectful comments only that do not use profanity. Plus I'd like to know how you found my blog.
Thanks,
Michael