One is a giver, other a taker
Remember four years ago when President Obama was campaigning and he met Joe the plumber? Joe told him “You want to raise my taxes.” To which Obama replied, “Yes, I’d like to spread the wealth around.” Candidate Obama’s previous years’ tax return showed charitable contributions of $250. This was when he still was a member of Rev. Wright’s church.
Mitt Romney’s recently submitted return (I’m not sure of the year) tax return showed charitable contributions of around $2 million with another $2 million he didn’t claim.
So there you have it. Two charitable candidates. One wants to do it with your money, the other does it with his own.
Joseph Bruhn
Brainerd
Comments (9)
Add commentMeanwhile, in the real world...
In 2008 Obama donated $175,000 to charity and paid about $855,000 in taxes federal income taxes on an adjusted gross income of about $2.7 million. That's roughly 32 percent for federal taxes (more than twice the rate Romney paid on the returns he released).
In 2009 President Obama gave about $329,000 to charity, and asked the Nobel Prize committee to donate his $1.4 million prize directly to 10 different charities, which meant he couldn't take a tax deduction on it.
We know this because the president's tax returns have been released to the public.
And Joe the (would-be) Plumber admitted he had only talked about starting a plumbing business and actually made about $40,000 a year, which means he was probably paid no federal taxes at all.
love facts
thanx to Otter for doing fact check
I believe that the point to
I believe that the point to take away is the last line. Some people spend their own money and some people want to spend others money. The writer maybe took the amount that Joe Biden donated or a previous year of Obama.
I don't remember where Obama made all that money in 2008 when he was a senator and campaigning for Pres.
Some was Michelle from the hospital, maybe the rest from his book but, then 2009 had a good sized income too, more books.
Do mormon's have any obligation to help others in need?
I know as a christian that Christians have an obligation to think of others less fortunate than themselves.
That does not mean endlessly tossing money at those adults of sound mind and body who would abuse it, but picking a person up and getting them back on their feet. Or helping a child through no fault of their own stuck in very poor conditions. Taking care of our severely ill or wounded.
Which is another reason I find today's republican party platform so ironic. Cherry picking which of God's teachings to follow. It's a "I got mine, now go find your own on your own" mentality--and often those who "got mine" had help along the way themselves!
Nowhere in the bible does it say you have no obligation to help others in need less fortunate than yourself, but that seems to be written in a stone tablet in the republican platform these days.
LoudRINO
Not so fast. Speaking of "cherry picking," your argument only takes into account half of the biblical material.
As a Christian, I am not obligated to give anything...period. That's because "God loves a cheerful giver." Obligation is not part of the equation. We are constrained by the "Law of Love."
Common sense
Anyone with any common sense knows Obama has to go. He and his band of marxist thugs are a cancer on America. Unless you have your hand out wanting more "free stuff" with no concern for your children's future Romney is the only credible candidate. Obama will try to give us more food stamps and class/race warfare while Romney will try and give us more opportunity when he returns America to prosperity. Use your head people.
Not obligated to help anyone else? What religion is that?
Curious if you could explain what religion you belong to tripwire? The bible is certainly chock full of references--new testament as well--regarding the obligation to give to others less fortunate than oneself.
Here's a great verse from Timothy: "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
Another from John: "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth."
Probably the most definitive verse, from Deuteronomy: "If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks."
ProudRINO
Look carefully at those verses you quoted. In the Timothy reference (6:17), putting one's hope in God takes precedence over an obligation of giving to the poor. Once hope in God happens, it should naturally follow that people will give to others. It is God's desire that we freely and willingly give to others out of our excess.
The second reference (from John's first epistle), is not commanding (or obligating) anything, but rather making an argument. How can we say we have love if we ignore the poor.
The reference from Deuteronomy, as eyolf would say, is from the Old Covenant. It was God's intent to preserve a line (nation) that would ultimately bring about the Messiah, not to provide an ethical code for all time. That came later, "Love God with al your heart and your neighbor as yourself."
But, if we want to argue that we should adopt those measures, as you seem to be doing, perhaps we should also drag homosexuals and adulterers outside the city limits and stone them. Are you also in favor of that?
proud
The giving you speak of, I think, is your personal giving and that of your church not the government. I think churches have let the government take that away from their responsibility. At least, that is how I see it -- that it is my personal responsibility and that of my church, not the governments.
Along with that, I say that churches have let the government take that over, some are taking in the homeless, doing food shelves, etc.
It is interesting how you are inserting the Bible, and Christianity when I thought we were to keep that out of government.