Warning: Here comes another rant.
Yeah, this makes me mad, really mad. Democrats are all about “helping the needy” and “taxing the rich and giving to the poor.” But when it comes time to pay up and accomplish this, what do they do? Give to these efforts out of their own pocket? No way, they want the government to pick your pocket to pay for their pet charities (just one example: the government gives $330 Million per year to Planned Parenthood- the largest abortion provider in the world).
Senator Joe Biden recently released his tax returns since 1998 to the present. While he and his wife were making $200,000-$300,000 a year they were giving anywhere from $120 to $995 per year to charity. Barack Obama’s record pre-2005 when he started his run for President was better than Biden’s but not by much. From 1997 until 2005 Obama’s average giving was well under the national household average of 2.2% per year. To put this in perspective in the year 2002 Obama and his wife claimed $1050 to charity while the average American household gave $1872. Keep in mind that their income was $259,394 that year putting them in the top 2% in terms of income earners in the US. Al Gore and the Clinton’s were not very generous during their administration either, though to their credit they have been very active in charitable giving since. Bush, Cheney, McCain on the other hand have been much more generous than their Democratic counterparts, giving an average of around 10% of their income per year to charities. They could do more and probably should, but if everyone would follow these Republican’s example in giving we would be able to take care of all the people in the United States who cannot help themselves, and let the government get out of the business of charity.
All of these facts illustrate my main point: Some High-Profile Democrats are hypocrites by claiming to be the party who is on the side of the poor and the downtrodden, yet their charitable giving tells a much different story. Your checkbook tells much more about where your heart is than anything you say with your mouth. Obama and Biden ought to be ashamed of themselves for claiming to be on the side of the poor, and yet not giving of their own funds to support the very people who put them in office.
I know what the reply will be… “But they give with their tax dollars!!” Well so do the Republicans, and that didn’t stop them from giving generously. Maybe it is a difference in philosophy. I believe that individuals and non-government entities do a much better job of getting help to people who need it than the government. Maybe the Democrats think government does a better job, but I didn’t see in any of their tax returns where they paid more than their share of taxes.
Sarah Palin’s tax returns will be let out in the next few days from what I hear and my prediction is that she and her husband have been much more generous than either Biden or Obama.
Rant over and out… until next time.
Jon
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Hypocrisy of the Left on Charitable Giving
Posted by JB at 9:41 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Ashley,
I appreciate your comment and your point is well taken. I don't claim to have it all right on my giving, or to be able to dictate what every person should or should not give. All situations are different.
I think it is completely inappropriate for pastors to tell their people who to vote for from the pulpit ("Vote God!!" one pastor said as a picture of W flashed on the screen behind him).
However, we live in the richest nation in the world, and because of that I believe we do have an obligation to give and to give generously to worthy causes. Our leaders ought to be held to a high standard in this area and to the degree that they fail to lead out in being generous, I believe that it is a legitimate criticism to call them out on it. Especially the ones who make the claim that they are the champions of the poor and downtrodden. Do you see my point?
Again, thanks for your comments. I always appreciate constructive criticism.
I am currently unpacking boxes, painting, and organizing the house, which will not be complete anytime soon. It's also why I haven't sat down to complete my comments to your other posts. However, I just wanted to quickly point out that #1: We are all hypocrites; #2: According to Scripture, we should always consider others better than ourselves; and #3: The government will have an opportunity to help people who churches, charities, and other organizations will never meet or even be aware of.
I'm not saying that "non-government entities" don't do a better job, but I've heard that excuse so much and I have an array of struggling friends who've never been approached with anything but judgement by the church if they've ever been approached at all.
Who will help those who never come in contact with the non-government entities?
It's just something simple to think about.
Kristen
Kristen,
We ARE all hypocrites, no doubt. We SHOULD consider others better than ourselves. However, this does not mean that we cannot point out inconsistency and hypocrisy in other's lives, otherwise we would never be challenged (nor would we ever challenge anyone else). Don't hear me saying that I'm morally superior to either Biden or Obama, I'm not. I'm just saying in this area, they are wrong and it needs to be highlighted because it has direct implications for where their interest lies.
As far as government being in the business of charity. I agree, the church has not done it's duty in this area. But I would argue that the government's takeover of charity is worse than the church's failure. The only thing worse than people not getting help who need it is many people getting help that they truly don't need- if this pattern continues it will impoverish the entire nation. This is why private organizations are much better at helping the needy because they have the man power and oversight to decide who needs help and who doesn't. Governmental charity takes the shame aspect out of welfare, and that needs to be there. If you are defrauding the government it's no big deal, but if you are defrauding your local church you will be found out and cut off from the funds.
Unfortunately we have to reckon with the reality of limited resources and give them out appropriately, the government is horrible at this. All I'm saying is that the government needs to get out of the business of charity because we can't afford to do it the way they do it (just like we cannot afford the war we are currently in), and they are horribly inefficient at getting help only to the people that truly need it.
Again, welfare should not be the job of the government. The government should create opportunity for people to excel, and allow society (churches and other organizations) to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. As for those who can work, but choose not to, they should not eat, or at least they should not live on public money- let them go bum off their relatives.
I am also a realist. It is unlikely that government will ever completely get out of welfare, but any steps in that direction will be better for everyone.
By the way, sometimes I say things in ways that are purposefully provocative. I use exaggeration and bombastic language to drive my point home. Don't take me too seriously, especially when there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the post, as there was on this one and the previous one.
As always I appreciate comments both positive and critical. I'm a big boy and can take it, so go ahead and tell me what you think.
Sola gratia,
JB
Comment from Kristen. Posted with her permission.
Grace Alone indeed, friend! I live on that stuff!
I don't disagree with you. It just seems that we are looking at the problem from different perspective. I don't claim to have answers, only questions or comments to hopefully provoke some critical thinking.
Believe that welfare should be eradicated simply because it is helping people who don't need help, I think, is harsh. The reason I said that we should consider others better than ourselves is for this reason. It seems that if we were doing that we wouldn't assume that the majority are abusing the system. And frankly, when I hear people say that, I feel like they are looking at the poor with very elitist eyes.
By the way, just so you know, I'm not a Democrat. I'm just not a Republican.
While the government is always going to have it's problems, so are the churches and charities. It is ridiculous to say that it is better for some to suffer so that others won't take what they don't need.
Again, I ask the personal question that changes everything. Who is the person you know who is struggling to get by and needs help from the government. The one thing I have absolutely hated about being back here in the small town deep south is that people have their groups of friends and they don't venture out and their "challenge" comes from commentary on people that they don't even know personally. When was the last time you have people over who aren't Christians? Who are on welfare and need it? Or who don't? Have you ever known a person who needed welfare? Who had it and didn't need it? Who are the people you love who are in this situation? You know, I hate to play the parent card, but I know where I've been in my life (and sometime I'll probably tell you about my journey because it will shed a little light on my views of the world) and what if it was your daughter who needed that government assistance and you weren't there to help? It almost makes me nauseous to say that, Jon, but it's something we have to think about in the name of compassion.
Welfare, public ed, health care, and all the stuff that has to do with money needs MAJOR ACCOUNTABILITY. It seems like there isn't any and I think putting serious serious accountability (which will take a lot of tax dollars!) in place will benefit those programs for the better, and ultimately stop a lot of people who don't need help from taking it.
I like your blog and thanks for making me think and not want to put my head in an oven like Rush Limbaugh does.
Kristen
thanks, kristen, whoever you are!
to modify for the public what i had posted, i was just telling jon to be careful what he says and how he says it b/c the congregation is watching...although this is not a pulpit, it might as well be...that was my point. i wasn't saying i thought he thought he did everything right. aaaanyway....
i just had a random question if we're going this direction: have you looked up how much personal $$ Bush, Cheney, McCain, or Palin have donated toward the cause of ending abortion and/or supporting a teen who "chooses life"? i haven't and frankly don't care enough to look it up, but i bet you do! if you find out, i'd be interested.
don't dish out the provocation now if you can't take it!
Ashley are you saying that they would be hypocritical if they do not give money to anti-abortion, or illegitimate children causes?
Cheney is Pro-choice so I doubt he gives much if any.
Bush- I'll look into it.
Palin- I wouldn't be surprised if she has given significantly to them, but I don't really know since her tax returns haven't been released.
McCain- How much does adopting a child with no chance count for?
I'll tell you what's funny Bush/Cheney/McCain have given more to help people who put people like Obama/Biden in office than they have!!
Kristen,
I didn't say that welfare should be irradicated. I think it should be slowly shifted away from the government to private organizations and churches.
I don't know that the majority of those on welfare are abusing the system, but I do know there is a considerable amount of abuse that goes on.
We shouldn't look at poor people with elitist eyes. I don't automatically assume that if someone is poor they are cheating the system or anything, and I don't know people who do that.
You said:
"It is ridiculous to say that it is better for some to suffer so that others won't take what they don't need."
There has to be limits on this. Otherwise you bankrupt the nation. There have to be limits on who get's help and who doesn't. I'm saying that it is better for some to suffer than for everyone to suffer. I'm not saying I wouldn't feel differntly if it was me or one of my loved ones in that situation.
The bottom line is, I want people to get help if they truly need it. I am a part of a church that reaches out to all classes, ethnicities, nationalities etc, and I'm proud of the direction we're going. Yes, we have a long way to go, but if churches and other organizations would step up, we could put the government out of the business of welfare or at least reduce their role in it.
You said:
"Welfare, public ed, health care, and all the stuff that has to do with money needs MAJOR ACCOUNTABILITY." I agree, putting these things in the private sector will give it all the accountability it needs- or at least it will be better than the accountability that a government can put on it. The buck has to stop with the people for whom the service is provided, if they aren't happy, the effort will not survive, and a new and better one will take it's place.
Thanks for your comments, and I'm thinking about doing a post about why I suck personally. I've blasted the Democrats enough I probably deserve some blasting myself. Confession is good for the soul. I'll be working on that.
Jon
As somone who makes just over $40,000 a year. I don't mind saying that my family and I have been blessed to consistently give over $5,000 a year back to our church and other organizations. Now, I don't say that to boast, because I truly see it as a duty of delight. I give my tithe check each week with great satisfaction in knowing I am simply giving back to God what is rightfully His. It truly does sadden me when people don't see the great opportunity they have in giving back to their community through either their local church or some humanitarian NPO. I mean whether or not McCain and Palin gave anything I will still voter for them, but it will bother me greatly if they haven't done so.
But the greater question is can you truly be concerned for those less fortunate than you, if you yourself do not give of your own money to help them out?
This is where I see the hypocrisy in all this. Maybe I am an Idealist, because in my America leaders wouldn't merely speak words they expect others to listen to and not heed themselves. (And this goes for Republicans as well as Democrats.) Far to long our political system has been filled with people who live by the motto of "Do as I say not as I do". Here at our church we try our best to help those we can, and those we can't we try to point in the direction of those that can assist them. We are a small church with 23 members so our benevolence is very limited, however we have helped families who have lost everything because of a house fire, those with disabilites and those that have fallen on hard times. Should the government help those who can't help themselves? YES! Should the government go broke in the process though? NO! Kristen is right about people in small rural towns not understanding the problems that others might be facing because for the most part people in more rural areas don't depend on the government like those in urban areans. And really it's just that simple. It's a fundamental difference that many on either side just don't understand, and that's why there will always be the debate about bigger or smaller government. But getting back to my larger point, it would be great if we could do away with health care and all assisted living programs because churches and communities took care of the problem but I would be naive to think that would truly ever happen. So government must help out those in need for now, but let us never think that this is governments main role or shouldn't be something WE THE PEOPLE forget to do because we think it's below us.
I also posted a comment here and it's not listed. Don't know what I'm doing wrong. CF
It is good to take care about making generalizations. For example, assuming that Republicans are more generous than Democrats based on political candidates is the same as assuming that only Democrats work for the betterment of the world because only two ex-presidents in the past 60 years (and before) have worked on this kind of project after leaving the presidency--and those two are Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Neither of these assumptions would be correct. Let's not give a label to the people in either party.
I didn't mean to paint Democrats as ungenerous, but the statistics show that Republicans are more likely to give of their time, and their disposable income to charities than Democrats.
Putting that aside, my main point in this post was to point out Obama and Biden's lack of generosity in the past 10 years. I gave props to Clinton for becoming much more charitably minded in his years after the White House.
Being generous and charitable is very important to me, and most Democrats I know say the same thing. I just figured it would be relevant to discussing the character of the people who are running for the highest office in the land to discuss their charitable tendencies. Especially when the Democrats are much more likely to tax me to pay for charitable causes that they are concerned with.
Post a Comment